Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 3 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (24)

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  To sum up, the Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

  The Court reiterates in this respect that even if Article 3 does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it has always interpreted the requirement to secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the part of the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).

  The Court further observes that the fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to ensure expeditious administration of justice (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  The Court insists that, in particular, authorities must ensure that the diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Melnik, cited above, §§ 104-106; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, cited above, § 211).

  Its ordinary task in such cases is therefore to assess the quality of medical services rendered to applicants and, if they have been deprived of adequate medical assistance, to ascertain whether this amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 78, 4 October 2005).

  In the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

  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, 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).

  In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  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).
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 38565/97

  COTLET c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  The applicant's position might be particularly vulnerable when he is held in custody with limited contacts with his family or the outside world (see Cotlet v. Romania, no. 38565/97, § 71, 3 June 2003).
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

  SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  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, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).
• EKMR, 08.09.1993 - 18264/91

  HOSEIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  While noting that the applicant has not made a formal complaint to the Court about that alleged incident, the Court reiterates that the occasional stopping of an applicant's letter to the Court will not necessarily raise an issue under Article 34 of the Convention (see Hosein v. the United Kingdom, no. 18264/91, Commission decision of 8 September 1993), particularly as it is apparent that, before or after the incident, the applicant's letters to the Court (or others) were sent without hindrance, and that even delays of some weeks in transmitting the applicant's letters to the Court will not be always regarded as significant or as hindering the exercise of the applicant's right of petition (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 134-137, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  Bearing in mind the prominent place which the right to a fair trial holds in a democratic society (see, inter alia, De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 30, Series A no. 86), the Court considers that the State should bear responsibility for a delay incurred through a successful challenge by a defendant of State-appointed counsel.
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 20877/04

  TESTA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 40119/09

  CANALI c. FRANCE

  De plus, la Cour a souvent considéré qu'un exercice en plein air d'une durée très limitée constituait un facteur qui aggravait la situation du requérant, confiné dans sa cellule pour le reste de la journée sans aucune liberté de mouvement (Gladkiy c. Russie, no 3242/03, § 69, 21 décembre 2010 et Yevgeniy Alekseyenko c. Russie, no 41833/04, § 88, 27 janvier 2011).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 23190/17

  PETRESCU c. PORTUGAL

  Aussi, dans pareilles affaires, la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 dès lors que le manque d'espace s'accompagnait d'autres mauvaises conditions matérielles de détention, telles qu'un manque de ventilation et de lumière (Torreggiani et autres, précité, § 69 ; voir également Moisseiev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 124-127, 9 octobre 2008 ; Vlassov c. Russie, no 78146/01, § 84, 12 juin 2008 ; et Babouchkine c. Russie, no 67253/01, § 44, 18 octobre 2007), un accès limité à la promenade en plein air (István Gábor Kovács c. Hongrie, no 15707/10, § 26, 17 janvier 2012 ; Efremidze c. Grèce, no 33225/08, § 38, 21 juin 2011 ; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko c. Russie, no 41833/04, §§ 88-89, 27 janvier 2011 ; Gladkiy c. Russie, no 3242/03, § 69, 21 décembre 2010 ; Shuvaev c. Grèce, no 8249/07, § 39, 29 octobre 2009 ; et Vafiadis c. Grèce, no 24981/07, § 36, 2 juillet 2009) ou un manque total d'intimité dans les cellules (Szafransky c. Pologne, no 17249/12, §§ 39-41, 15 décembre 2015 ; Veniosov c. Ukraine, no 30634/05, § 36, 15 décembre 2011 ; Mustafayev c. Ukraine, no 36433/05, § 32, 13 octobre 2011 ; Belevitski c. Russie, no 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1er mars 2007 ; Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, §§ 106-107, CEDH 2005-X (extraits) ; et Novosselov c. Russie, no 66460/01, §§ 32 et 40-43, 2 juin 2005).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19841/06

  BAGDONAVICIUS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Par exemple, elle a jugé que les contacts organisés entre les autorités et un requérant en vue de parvenir à un règlement amiable ne constituaient pas une entrave à l'exercice du droit de recours, à condition que les mesures prises par l'État dans le cadre des négociations à cet égard ne comportent aucune forme de pression, d'intimidation ou de coercition (Yevgeniy Alekseyenko c. Russie, no 41833/04, §§ 168-174, 27 janvier 2011).

 
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09

  TKACHUK c. RUSSIE

  La Cour note que la loi no 68-FZ du 20 avril 2010 prévoit la possibilité de réclamer, au niveau interne, réparation des dommages subis par les justiciables victimes d'une violation de leur droit à voir trancher leur cause dans un délai raisonnable ou de leur droit à obtenir l'exécution des décisions de justice dans un délai raisonnable (voir, pour plus de détails, Kalinkin et autres c. Russie, nos 16967/10 et 20 autres, §§ 14-17, 17 avril 2012, et Yevgeniy Alekseyenko c. Russie, no 41833/04, §§ 70-71, 27 janvier 2011).
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 11463/09

  SAMARAS ET AUTRES c. GRECE

  De plus, la Cour a souvent considéré qu'un exercice en plein air d'une durée très limitée consituait un facteur qui aggravait la situation du requérant qui était confiné dans sa cellule pour le reste de la journée sans aucune liberté de mouvement (Gladkiy c. Russie, no 3242/03, § 69, 21 décembre 2010 et Yevgeniy Alekseyenko c. Russie, no 41833/04, § 88, 27 janvier 2011).
• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 29760/15

  LAUTARU ET SEED c. GRÈCE

  Aussi, dans pareilles affaires, la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 dès lors que le manque d'espace s'accompagnait d'autres mauvaises conditions matérielles de détention, telles qu'un manque de ventilation et de lumière (Torreggiani et autres, précité, § 69, voir également Moisseiev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 124-27, 9 octobre 2008, Vlassov c. Russie, no 78146/01, § 84, 12 juin 2008 ; et Babouchkine c. Russie, no 67253/01, § 44, 18 octobre 2007), un accès limité à la promenade en plein air (István Gábor Kovács c. Hongrie, no 15707/10, § 26, 17 janvier 2012, Efremidze c. Grèce, no 33225/08, § 38, 21 juin 2011, Yevgeniy Alekseyenko c. Russie, no 41833/04, §§ 88-89, 27 janvier 2011, Gladkiy c. Russie, no 3242/03, § 69, 21 décembre 2010, Shuvaev c. Grèce, no 8249/07, § 39, 29 octobre 2009, et Vafiadis c. Grèce, no 24981/07, § 36, 2 juillet 2009) ou un manque total d'intimité dans les cellules (Szafransky c. Pologne, no 17249/12, §§ 39-41, 15 décembre 2015, Veniosov c. Ukraine, no 30634/05, § 36, 15 décembre 2011, Mustafayev c. Ukraine, no 36433/05, § 32, 13 octobre 2011, Belevitski c. Russie, no 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1er mars 2007, Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, §§ 106-107, CEDH 2005-X (extraits), et Novosselov c. Russie, no 66460/01, §§ 32 et 40-43, 2 juin 2005).
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 30472/17

  YUSEINOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  For example, the Court has found that the authorities" contacts with an applicant for the purpose of securing a friendly-settlement agreement do not amount to hindrance of the exercise of his right of individual application, provided that steps taken by a State in the context of settlement negotiations with an applicant do not involve any form of pressure, intimidation or coercion (see Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, §§ 168-174, 27 January 2011).
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 13817/05

  AKSENOV v. RUSSIA

  The relevant provisions of domestic law and international reports and documents governing the health care of detainees are set out in the following judgments: A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 77-84, 14 October 2010; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, §§ 60-66 and 73-80, 27 January 2011; and Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, §§ 33-39 and 42-48, 30 September 2011.
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 39070/08

  ATAYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court insists that, in particular, authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 85, 11 October 2011; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia, no. 41833/04, § 100, 27 January 2011; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 84, 21 December 2010; Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006; and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  SNYATOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  The applicable general principles have been summarised in Idalov (cited above § 186); Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC] (no. 49017/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI); Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], (no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II); Grigoryev v. Russia (no. 22663/06, §§ 90 and 92, 23 October 2012); and Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia (no. 41833/04, §§ 143-44, 27 January 2011).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 19327/13

  KAVKAZSKIY v. RUSSIA