Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MKHITARYAN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Mkhitaryan v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (27)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts in those cases had extended the applicant's detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006).

  The Court thus finds that the two periods in question cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not "speedy").

• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  The Court reiterates in this regard that even though 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 State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts in those cases had extended the applicant's detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006).

• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  Shifting the burden of proof to the detained person in such matters is tantamount to overturning the rule of Article 5 of the Convention, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 67, 7 April 2005, and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 84-85, 26 July 2001).

  It acknowledges that in view of the seriousness of the accusations against the applicant, the authorities could justifiably have considered that such an initial risk was established (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 80-81, 26 July 2001).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  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).

  Where such grounds are found to have been "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV and Suslov v. Russia, no. 2366/07, §§ 93-97, 29 May 2012).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  However, the Court reiterates that the possibility of a severe sentence alone is not sufficient after a certain lapse of time to justify continued detention based on the danger of flight (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7, and B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, § 44, Series A no. 175).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  In particular, regard must be had to the character of the person involved, his morals and his assets (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 33, Series A no. 254-A).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts in those cases had extended the applicant's detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  However, the Court reiterates that the possibility of a severe sentence alone is not sufficient after a certain lapse of time to justify continued detention based on the danger of flight (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7, and B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, § 44, Series A no. 175).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  The Court thus concludes that, in the circumstances of this case, the risk of the applicant interfering with the course of justice actually did exist, and it justified holding him in custody (see, for similar reasoning, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, 4 May 2006, and Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59-60, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  The Court may intervene only in situations where the rights and liberties guaranteed under the Convention have been infringed (see Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 59, ECHR 2007-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 46793/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 921/03

  BORDIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

  GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 2366/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent ones, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014, and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014).

  While the Court doubts whether those circumstances, taken on their own, could have justified the domestic courts" finding that it was necessary to continue the applicant's detention, it is satisfied that the totality of those factors combined with other relevant grounds could have provided the domestic courts with an understanding of the pattern of the applicant's behaviour and the persistence of a risk of his absconding (see, for similar reasoning, Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, § 42, 18 December 2012, and Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 93, 5 February 2013).

• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent ones, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014, and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014).

  While the Court doubts whether those circumstances, taken on their own, could have justified the domestic courts" finding that it was necessary to continue the applicant's detention, it is satisfied that the totality of those factors combined with other relevant grounds could have provided the domestic courts with an understanding of the pattern of the applicant's behaviour and the persistence of a risk of his absconding (see, for similar reasoning, Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, § 42, 18 December 2012, and Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 93, 5 February 2013).

• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 80442/12

  Cécile Lecomte

  Die Beurteilung, ob dieses Mindestmaß erreicht ist, ist relativ: Sie hängt von allen Umständen des Falls ab, wie der Dauer der Behandlung, der körperlichen und mentalen Folgen und in einigen Fällen auch dem Geschlecht, Alter und Gesundheitszustand des Opfers (siehe u.a. Kalashnikov./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 47095/99, Rdnr. 95, ECHR 2002-VI; Van der Ven, a.a.O., Rdnr. 47 und Mkhitaryan./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 46108/11, Rdnr. 70, 5.

• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13

  TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that there is nothing in the material submitted to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the court (see, for similar reasoning, Amirov, cited above; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012; and Buldashev v. Russia, no. 46793/06, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14

  PATRANIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent ones, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014; and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014).
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 7309/04

  VEFA SERDAR c. TURQUIE

  Pour les principes généraux, la Cour renvoie aux résumés fournis dans ses arrêts Liartis c. Grèce (no 16906/10, §§ 45, 46 et 48, 10 mai 2012) et Mkhitaryan c. Russie (no 46108/11, §§ 70-72, 5 février 2013) et, rappelant que le devoir de soigner la personne malade au cours de sa détention met à la charge de l'État les obligations particulières de veiller à ce que le détenu soit capable de purger sa peine, de lui administrer les soins médicaux nécessaires et d'adapter, le cas échéant, les conditions générales de détention à la situation particulière de son état de santé (Xiros c. Grèce, no 1033/07, § 73, 9 septembre 2010).
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 32863/13

  LITVINOV v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of an effective remedy to air complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates, the Court may find itself obliged to perform a first-hand evaluation of evidence before it to determine whether the guarantees of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention have been respected (see Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014, and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014; Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, 27 November 2014, § 90).
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  There is nothing in the materials submitted to the Court to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the court (see, for similar reasoning, Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, 27 November 2014; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012, and Buldashev v. Russia, no. 46793/06, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13

  KHALVASH v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of an effective remedy to air complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates, the Court may find itself obliged to perform the first-hand evaluation of evidence before it to determine whether the guarantees of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention had been respected (see Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014, and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014; Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, 27 November 2014, § 90).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined a large number of cases against Russia raising complaints of inadequate medical services afforded to inmates (see, among the most recent examples, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Gurenko v. Russia, no. 41828/10, 5 February 2013; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014; and Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014).
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 42526/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

  NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  KALININ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  STVRTECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 12646/15

  MAYLENSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 35105/10

  KOLESNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 12987/15

  KONDRULIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 10216/06

  [ENG]
• VG München, 17.12.2019 - M 30 K 17.45999

  Kein Anspruch auf Zuerkennung der Flüchtlingseigenschaft oder …