Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,55281
EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55281)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.11.2012 - 41461/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55281)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. November 2012 - 41461/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55281)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55281) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture ...

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (348)Zitiert selbst (55)

  • EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

    ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10
    Even though he received a personal reply that his complaint was to be examined, the Court reiterates that, as a general rule, an application to an ombudsman cannot be regarded as an effective remedy as required by Article 35 of the Convention, because the ombudsman has no power to render a binding decision granting redress (see Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 84, 12 March 2009, with further references).

    The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).

  • EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

    Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10
    However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).
  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10
    42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 113-118, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09

    GORBULYA v. RUSSIA

    42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 25-48, 10 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013.

    It found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing conditions of detention or the provision of medical care to detainees, the prison authorities would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 75, 27 November 2012, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 101).

  • EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

    Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

    The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; and Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016).
  • EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

    NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

    It has found, in particular, that in deciding on a complaint concerning breaches of domestic regulations governing conditions of detention the prosecutor's office would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, § 75, 27 November 2012, and Ananyev and Others, Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 101, 10 January 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht