Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NEDAYBORSHCH v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in 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, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

  BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  The Court, however, reiterates that even where detention was effected in different facilities, it may examine the period of the detention as a whole, provided that the nature of the applicant's grievances relating to the conditions of his detention has remained substantially the same throughout that period (see Buzhinayev v. Russia, no. 17679/03, § 23, 15 October 2009; Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia, no. 6954/02, § 83, 29 January 2009; Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 31-33, 19 June 2008; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 31, 10 May 2007, and also Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 142, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  The Court has already rejected the identical objection by the Russian Government in case of Nazarov v. Russia (no. 13591/05, § 77, 26 November 2009).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02

  GULIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04

  GRIDIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33470/03

  ANTIPENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 17679/03

  BUZHINAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 30422/03

  PSHENICHNYY v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Similarly, in a situation where the applicant's detention in the police ward was not continuous but occurred at regular intervals when he was brought there for an interview with the investigator or other procedural acts, the Court accepted that in the absence of any material change in the conditions of his detention, the breaking-up of his detention into several periods was not justified (see Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 25, 1 July 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined the conditions of detention obtaining in police stations in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 June 2008; Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 23 et seq., 29 April 2010; Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 32, 1 July 2010; Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 69 et seq., 3 March 2011; Fedotov, cited above, § 67; Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, §§ 128-34, 20 December 2011; and Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 89-93, 3 May 2012).
• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 18255/10

  TOMOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that in cases concerning the conditions of an applicant's transport between a remand prison and a courthouse, even though the applicant was transported on separate days rather than continually, the absence of any marked change in the conditions of transport to which he or she had been routinely subjected creates a "continuing situation" which brings the entire period complained of within the Court's competence (see Tychko v. Russia, no. 56097/07, § 49, 11 June 2015, and Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 24, 1 July 2010).

• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined the conditions of detention obtaining in police stations in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 69 et seq., 3 March 2011; Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 32, 1 July 2010; Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 23 et seq., 29 April 2010; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 June 2008; Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 67, 25 October 2005; Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, §§ 128-34, 20 December 2011; and Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 89-93, 3 May 2012).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Similarly, in a situation where the applicant's detention in the police ward was not continuous but occurred at regular intervals when he was brought there for an interview with the investigator or other procedural acts, the Court accepted that in the absence of any material change in the conditions of his detention, the breaking-up of his detention into several periods was not justified (see Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 25, 1 July 2010).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 13448/07

  [ENG]

  Notwithstanding that between 2001 and 2008 the applicant was held in five different facilities, his allegations of inadequacy of medical assistance during the entire period (namely, inadequacy of tuberculosis treatment and complete unavailability of HIV therapy) are sufficiently similar and can be characterised as a continuing situation (see, mutatis mutandis, Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 24, 1 July 2010).
• EGMR, 09.07.2026 - 4420/18

  GEORGANTZIAS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Since the allegation of severe overcrowding remained the main characteristic of conditions with regard to all the dormitories in the Larissa Prison, the period of his detention should be regarded as a "continuing situation" (see Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, §§ 24-25, 1 July 2010).
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 41038/07

  [ENG]

  The Court notes that it has already examined the conditions of detention in temporary detention centres in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see Khristoforov v. Russia, no. 11336/06, §§ 22-29, 29 April 2010; Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, §§ 27-33, 1 July 2010; Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, §§ 89-93, 3 May 2012; and Velichko v. Russia, no. 19664/07, §§ 54-60, 15 January 2013).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05

  [ENG]

  Moreover, in the case of Nazarov v. Russia (no. 13591/05, § 77, 26 November 2009) the Court dealt with the Government's argument on the basis of the reference to the awards that had been made by the Russian courts in favour of a Mr D. and a Mr R. The Court noted that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention had apparently been of a structural nature, for which no effective domestic remedy had been shown to exist, and that the cases to which the Government had referred did not concern detention in overcrowded cells but rather a detainee's infection with scabies and the authorities" failure to provide a detainee with food (see, for similar reasoning, Nedayborshch v. Russia, no. 42255/04, § 21, 1 July 2010; Arefyev v. Russia, no. 29464/03, § 54, 4 November 2010; and Geld v. Russia, no. 1900/04, § 21, 27 March 2012).
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

  Se référant à l'affaire Nedayborshch c. Russie (no 42255/04, § 25, 1er juillet 2010), il invite la Cour à tenir compte de la totalité de la période durant laquelle il a été détenu dans la maison d'arrêt SIZO-2 aux fins de l'examen de la recevabilité de son grief tiré de l'article 3 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 13579/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 23880/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 44240/12

  YAKOVLEV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 19664/07

  [ENG]