Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FIRSTOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Firstov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  The Court has no doubt that the domestic courts in the present case, with every desire to be just and eminently reasonable, attempted to assess the cumulative effect which the conditions of detention had had on the applicant's well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II) and to determine the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the applicant by reason of his detention in those conditions (see Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  However, it reiterates its finding made in a number of cases that financial or logistical difficulties, as well as the lack of a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, may not be cited by the domestic authorities as circumstances relieving them of their obligation to organise the State's penitentiary system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees (see, among other authorities, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  However, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the amount of RUB 500 awarded for an aggregate period of a month on twenty-three occasions of detention, that is, a rate of approximately RUB 16 per day, was disproportionately lower than the damages that it generally awards in comparable Russian cases (see, for example, Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, 16 June 2005, and Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, 21 June 2007).

• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  Short periods of absence during which the applicant was taken back to facility IZ-73/3 had no incidence on the continuous nature of the detention (see, among others, Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, § 19 and §§ 81-84, 17 December 2009; Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, §§ 72-78, 17 January 2012; and Samartsev v. Russia, no. 44283/06, § 38 and §§ 106-14, 2 May 2013).
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  These include also the value of the award judged in the light of the standard of living and the general level of incomes in the State concerned, and the fact that a remedy in the national system is closer and more accessible than an application to the Court (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 206 and 268, and Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004, with further references).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  However, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the amount of RUB 500 awarded for an aggregate period of a month on twenty-three occasions of detention, that is, a rate of approximately RUB 16 per day, was disproportionately lower than the damages that it generally awards in comparable Russian cases (see, for example, Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, 16 June 2005, and Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, 21 June 2007).
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02

  GULIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the distress and hardship endured by the applicant exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and went beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3 (see, for similar reasoning, Kantyrev, cited above, §§ 52-53, Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, § 43, 19 June 2008; Shilbergs, cited above, §§ 81-84; Andreyevskiy v. Russia, no. 1750/03, §§ 73-78, 29 January 2009; and Samartsev, cited above, § 112-14).
• EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

  NARDONE c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  The Court has no doubt that the domestic courts in the present case, with every desire to be just and eminently reasonable, attempted to assess the cumulative effect which the conditions of detention had had on the applicant's well-being (see, mutatis mutandis, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II) and to determine the level of physical suffering, emotional distress, anxiety or other harmful effects sustained by the applicant by reason of his detention in those conditions (see Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04

  GRIDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  The Court reiterates, firstly, that the applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of the non-pecuniary damage he has sustained (see Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 1750/03

  ANDREYEVSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 49438/99

  STAYKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 44283/06

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.06.2026 - 17201/23

  OTTLAKÁN v. HUNGARY

  Rn. 52 Having regard to the findings under Article 13 (see paragraph 47 above), the Court reiterates that the Domján remedy, as altered by the 2020 Amendment, was not an effective remedy in the applicant's case, therefore his grievances under Article 3 were not adequately remedied (see, mutatis mutandis, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, §§ 30-39, 20 February 2014, and for general principles, Scordino, cited above, §§ 178-91).
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

  The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - a matter comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is important in that sense (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 93, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 58240/08

  SARISHVILI-BOLKVADZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  Conversely, it has found that a disproportionately lower award of non-pecuniary damages than the damages that the Court generally awards in comparable cases may be insufficient and manifestly unreasonable (see, mutatis mutandis, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, §§ 35 and 38, 20 February 2014).

• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 21024/08

  [ENG]

  As for the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants, the Court reiterates that reparation for the damage caused should be comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 35, 20 February 2014, and Mindrova v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 32454/06, §§ 24 and 25, 31 January 2017).
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 35861/11

  KEKELASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  At the same time, the Court has also held on a number of occasions that a wider margin of appreciation should be left to the domestic courts when assessing the level of compensation (see, for instance, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V, and Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 36, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 1227/06

  TETYANA GAVRYLOVA AND DENYS GAVRYLOV v. UKRAINEand 4 other applications

  Those considerations include the domestic legal system and legal traditions in the respondent State, the standard of living and the general level of incomes in the State concerned, and the fact that a remedy in the national system is closer and more accessible than one sought through an application to the Court (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 206 and 268, CEDH 2006-V; Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004; Firstov, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; and Simanovičs v. Latvia, no. 55047/12, (dec.), 18 November 2014).
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06

  SVITLANA ATAMANYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - a matter comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is important in that sense (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 93, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  SIMANOVICS v. LATVIA

  As more recently held by the Court in Firstov v. Russia (no. 42119/04, 20 February 2014), the duration of the applicant's detention and the reasons given by the domestic courts in making an award in respect of that detention are also among the factors to be taken into account in assessing whether the domestic award can be considered as adequate and sufficient redress (§ 33).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 25516/12

  BIZJAK v. SLOVENIA

  Such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions, and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V, and Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 36, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 52241/14

  VASILEVSKIY AND BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA

  There is no standard by which pain and suffering, physical discomfort and psychological distress and anguish can be measured in terms of money (see Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 35, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 22.02.2018 - 50407/10

  SOLONENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 42139/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.03.2018 - 19538/10

  NICHEPORUK v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  MINDROVA v. UKRAINE