Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Preliminary objections partially dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objections partially joined to merits and dismissed (victim) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d ...

Wird zitiert von ... (166)Zitiert selbst (46)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2279, § 64; Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1891-92, §§ 83-84 and 86; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, in respect of Russia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006-...; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006).

  Admittedly, in recent years the concept of "torture" has been interpreted in an evolutive manner and acts previously classified as inhuman and degrading treatment are now in some cases described as torture (see Selmouni, cited above, §§ 101 and 105; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  Nevertheless, as noted above, such force may be used only if indispensible and must not be excessive (see Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007, with further references).

  However, the manner in which the domestic law regulates the use of force against detainees does not absolve Russia from its responsibilities under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch, cited above, § 34; and Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 64, 12 April 2007).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Chahal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1855, § 79).

  It observes that the applicant's pre-trial detention ended on 9 January 2002 when the Frunzenskiy District Court of Ivanovo convicted him (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 147, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

  This is so because, if the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity, and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice (see, among many other authorities, Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 60, 30 September 2004, and mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, p. 2431, § 74; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-IV; Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 83, ECHR 2000-VII; Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 57, 14 December 2000; Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 105, 4 May 2001; Avsar v. Turkey [GC], no. 25657/94, § 377, ECHR 2001-VII).

• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 38; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

  This is so because, if the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity, and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice (see, among many other authorities, Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 60, 30 September 2004, and mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, p. 2431, § 74; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-IV; Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 83, ECHR 2000-VII; Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 57, 14 December 2000; Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 105, 4 May 2001; Avsar v. Turkey [GC], no. 25657/94, § 377, ECHR 2001-VII).

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 60018/00

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  Thus, the Court cannot find that the applicant may be regarded as having waived his rights under Article 6 as to the opportunity to examine the witness against him (see Bonev v. Bulgaria, no. 60018/00, § 40, 8 June 2006, with further references, and Bocos-Cuesta, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  ACCARDI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  The applicant was neither provided with an opportunity to follow the manner in which Mr I. was interrogated by the investigator on those occasions nor he was then or later provided with an opportunity to have questions put to Mr I. Furthermore, as Mr I."s statements to the investigator were not recorded on video, neither the applicant nor the judges were able to observe his demeanour under questioning and thus form their own impression of his reliability (see, a contrario, Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 17.11.2005 - 73047/01

  Konfrontationsrecht (Verwertungsverbot hinsichtlich einer entscheidenden …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  While the Court is not unmindful of the domestic courts" obligation to secure the proper conduct of the trial and avoid undue delays in the criminal proceedings, it does not consider that a five-day stay in the proceedings for the purpose of obtaining Mr I."s testimony at the trial, in which the applicant stood accused of a very serious offence and was risking a long term of imprisonment, would have constituted an insuperable hindrance to the expediency of the proceedings at hand (see Artner, cited above, p. 10, § 21; Berisha v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 42965/98, 4 May 2000; and Haas v. Germany (dec.), no. 73047/01, 17 November 2005).
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  Given that the guarantees in paragraph 3 of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1, it is appropriate to examine these complaints under the two provisions taken together (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  In this connection, the Court recalls that as a general rule the requirements of paragraphs 3 (d) and 1 of Article 6 will be satisfied if the defendant was given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him at a certain stage of the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Isgrò v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-A, p. 12, § 34, and Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, §§ 40-43, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

  NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  MATKO v. SLOVENIA
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

  DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 17060/03

  ZELILOF v. GREECE
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 35962/97

  GÖMI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 31.10.2001 - 47023/99

  SOLAKOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 62710/00

  LUNGOCI c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 46825/99

  CLAES ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 18.09.2001 - 49104/99

  PUELINCKX contre la BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 18.09.2001 - 49010/99

  WALLYN contre la BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 18.09.2001 - 49195/99

  HERMANUS contre la BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 77092/01

  NECDET BULUT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.09.2001 - 49716/99

  DELANGHE contre la BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 18.09.2001 - 47502/99

  DASSAULT contre la BELGIQUE
• EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 28572/95

  M.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42965/98

  BERISHA v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 13.12.2001 - 45701/99

  Metropolitankirche von Bessarabien u.a. ./. Moldawien
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 43425/98

  Meinungsfreiheit (konstitutive Bedeutung in der Demokratie; Eingriff; …
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

  SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 30160/04

  DZHAVADOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 22978/05

  Gäfgen - Folter bei polizeilicher Vernehmung; Kindesentführung; Geständnis trotz …

  Vorbringen nach Artikel 3 der Konvention muss der Gerichtshof besonders gründlich prüfen (siehe Matko ./. Slowenien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43393/98, Rdnr. 100, Urteil vom 2. November 2006, und Vladimir Romanov ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 41461/02, Rdnr. 59, 24.
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 36391/02

  Wirksamkeitsverpflichtete Konventionsauslegung; Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen …

  We would, however, have liked the reasoning set out in paragraph 72 of the judgment, on account of its importance, to have been included in the operative provisions as well, for reasons which have already been explained to a certain extent in the joint concurring opinion of Judges Spielmann and Malinverni in Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, (no. 41461/02, judgment of 24 July 2008) as well as the concurring opinion of Judge Spielmann in Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia, (no. 30997/02, judgment of 25 September 2008), and are now repeated here.
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04
  The Court therefore considers it unnecessary to examine separately whether the fairness of the proceedings was also breached by the manner in which counsel, Ms Ya. had rendered legal assistance to the applicant and because the applicant had not been assisted by counsel during the appeal proceedings (see Komanický v. Slovakia, no. 32106/96, § 56, 4 June 2002 and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 107, 24 July 2008).

  Given its importance, I would have liked this reasoning set out in paragraph 99 of the judgment to have been included in the operative provisions as well, for the reasons explained in detail in the joint concurring opinion in the case of Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008).

• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  GUBERINA v. CROATIA

  Accordingly, the Court has no reason to doubt the applicant's proper use of remedies before the administrative and judicial authorities (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 52, 24 July 2008; Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, § 48, 29 May 2012; and Zrilić v. Croatia, no. 46726/11, § 49, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 39660/02

  Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen Verteidigerbeistand bei der ersten Vernehmung …

  Rn. 100 65. The Court also reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position that he would have been in had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if so requested by the person concerned (see Öcalan (GC), cited above, § 210, and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 118, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 33780/04

  [ENG]

  The Court further reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 118, 24 July 2008; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).

  [1] See our joint concurring opinions appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).

• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09

  GORBULYA v. RUSSIA

  Were it otherwise, the prospect of future compensation would legitimise particularly severe suffering in breach of this core provision of the Convention (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 78, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 43233/02

  MAKSIMOV v. RUSSIA

  The effective investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment complaints alone could not redress the physical and psychological damage flowing from the direct and deliberate invasion of the applicant's bodily integrity and therefore represented only one part of the group of measures necessary to provide redress for the ill-treatment by the State agent (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 79, 24 July 2008).

  The effective investigation into the applicant's ill-treatment complaints alone could not redress the physical and psychological damage flowing from the direct and deliberate invasion of the applicant's bodily integrity and therefore represented only one part of the measures necessary to provide redress for the ill-treatment by the State agent (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 79, 24 July 2008).

• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 1111/02

  TROFIMOV v. RUSSIA

  In these circumstances, the Court should have reiterated - as it has done in other cases - that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position that he would have been in had the requirements of the provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 118, 24 July 2008; and Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia, no. 30997/02, § 219, 25 September 2008).

  On account of its importance, such reasoning should then have been included in the operative provisions as well, for reasons which I have already explained to a certain extent in other separate opinions (see for example, the joint concurring opinion I appended with Judge Malinverni to the Vladimir Romanov v. Russia judgment (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008) as well as my concurring opinion in Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia (no. 30997/02, 25 September 2008).

• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 47159/08

  [FRE]

  Or, de l'avis de la Cour, cette demande de la requérante n'était pas superflue pour l'identification des agents de police impliqués dans les incidents et la découverte des éventuels responsables, comme exigé par la jurisprudence de la Cour (voir, entre autres, Krastanov c. Bulgarie, no 50222/99, § 48, 30 septembre 2004, Çamdereli c. Turquie, no 28433/02, §§ 28-29, 17 juillet 2008, et Vladimir Romanov c. Russie, no 41461/02, §§ 79 et 81, 24 juillet 2008).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 29896/14

  JEVTOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.05.2024 - 6232/20

  Micheil Saakaschwili
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 36658/05

  MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

  KORYAK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 4268/04

  PANOVITS c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 43852/12

  BELYAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 9373/15

  M.A. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 6945/04

  ILATOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  IVKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 32036/10

  BUTKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21

  NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 50446/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 5666/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 1653/13

  Spanien verurteilt: ETA-Terroristen unmenschlich behandelt
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.06.2017 - 12131/13

  Italien verurteilt: Folter durch Polizeigewalt
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  SINISTAJ v. MONTENEGRO ant 2 other applications
• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14

  PATRANIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 57519/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 1413/05

  DAMIR SIBGATULLIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND C.C. v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 24655/18

  BARANIN v. MONTENEGRO and 1 other application
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 19072/08

  HABIMI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 29540/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 19157/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 32540/05

  VRBICA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 1128/16

  GJINI v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  JULIN v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

  POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 9867/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.04.2019 - 38089/12

  SARWARI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 56396/12

  PEREIRA CRUZ c. PORTUGAL et 3 autres affaires
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 28333/13

  TSELOVALNIK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 57467/10

  SAMACHISA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4570/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 5605/04

  KARPENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 48185/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 71848/13

  STARENKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  CHORBADZHIYSKI AND KRASTEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 7148/06

  SHVEDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 2770/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 54999/10

  MILIC ET NIKEZIC c. MONTÉNÉGRO
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 36629/10

  SABA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 41828/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 4532/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 55555/08

  LELAS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  SEVASTYANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.05.2009 - 8413/02

  ALIBEKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 56280/07

  TAU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 10216/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.04.2012 - 41356/08

  BUTOLEN v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04

  VLADIMIR FEDOROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07

  MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 32863/13

  LITVINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 13810/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 39549/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 12294/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 24460/04

  SHANIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 48101/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 25276/15

  VERZILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 840/18

  PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 13312/08

  FELLNER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 16179/14

  BUTRIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 40549/11

  POEDE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 20579/12

  GHEDIR ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 34725/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 18280/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.02.2010 - 20100/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25904/06

  LESJAK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2026 - 28005/24

  S.B. v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 41298/21

  LÉOTARD c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  MÎTU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 40952/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 76672/12

  HOALGA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13

  KHALVASH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 22867/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.07.2012 - 31939/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  KOPYLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 36892/05

  N. B. gegen Deutschland
• EGMR - 54999/10 (anhängig)

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 20963/08

  BOYETS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16

  GALEA v. MALTA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 16412/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.11.2014 - 66773/13

  PERRILLAT-BOTTONET c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 28074/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09

  ISMATULLAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  NIKOLAY FEDOROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 34588/07

  DARRAJ c. FRANCE
• EGMR - 586/08 (anhängig)

  YANCHURKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.12.2025 - 28631/18

  MALATESTA v. GREECE
• EGMR, 29.08.2024 - 59464/21

  KHACHAPURIDZE AND KHACHIDZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 61504/10

  TOPAL v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 37368/15

  CHONG CORONADO c. ANDORRE
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 32163/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 50443/14

  ARION c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 2204/07

  GUKOVYCH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 32163/13

  GHEORGHITA ET ALEXE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 28.04.2016 - 8347/07

  BALAJEVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 48475/09

  SAKIR c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 33803/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 20427/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 41408/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17588/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2945/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 23625/06

  ZARUBINSKIY v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
• EGMR, 17.03.2026 - 56462/19

  SUNGUR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.12.2025 - 37344/11

  KARAOGLAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.11.2025 - 19735/22

  BARTOŠOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 72036/14

  SYLAKOS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 76551/16

  SAMSSER KHAN c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 47050/16

  KRAVTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 66812/17

  BELIKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 66355/11

  SEVASTYANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 25406/08

  TOPALOGLU v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 16088/06

  ZELIK AND KEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 68842/13

  MARINESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 15397/11

  ALBERTI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 27100/03

  YEVGENIY IVANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 6649/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33530/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 11014/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 27.10.2011 - 21240/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 14569/05

  SARIGIANNIS c. ITALIE
• EGMR - 31880/08 (anhängig)

  VECHERSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2025 - 30814/22

  MARTINEZ FERNANDEZ v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 19816/09

  BAMBAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 40521/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 55650/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 47190/12

  VASILOPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 74467/10

  ATYUKOV v. RUSSIA and 11 other applicatiions
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 30456/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 11680/03

  ALOYAN AND NADRYAN v. RUSSIA