Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOPANITSYN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Struck out of the list (Article 37-1-c - Continued examination not justified) Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition) Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 43231/04

  To this end, the Court will examine the declaration carefully in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 43231/04

  The Court notes that it has repeatedly found violations of Articles 3 and 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of inadequate conditions of detention in Russian custodial facilities (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, cited above) and the excessively long pre-trial detention of applicants without relevant and sufficient reasons (see, among many other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 104-121, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 43083/06

  ZOLOTAREV c. RUSSIE

  Dans ses arrêts précédents, la Cour a considéré que les agissements susmentionnés constituaient des exemples d'une entrave prohibée par la seconde phrase de l'article 34 de la Convention (Yefimenko c. Russie, no 152/04, §§ 161-165, 12 février 2013, Fetisov et autres c. Russie, nos 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 et 52133/08, §§ 142-145, 17 janvier 2012, et Kopanitsyn c. Russie, no 43231/04, § 43, 12 mars 2015).
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 42147/05

  URAZOV v. RUSSIA

  To this end, the Court will examine the declaration in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI, and Kopanitsyn v. Russia, no. 43231/04, §§ 23-32, 12 March 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 923/03

  YELISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  The opening of letters by prison authorities can therefore hinder applicants in bringing their cases to the Court, precisely by producing this "chilling effect" (see Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, §§ 118 and 119, 30 November 2004; Belyaev and Digtyar v. Ukraine, nos. 16984/04 and 9947/05, § 61, 16 February 2012; and Kopanitsyn v. Russia, no. 43231/04, § 43, 12 March 2015).