Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MSKHILADZE v. RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  KIM v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 47741/16

  In May 2016 the Russian authorities submitted a communication to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (Action Plan, DH-DD(2015)527) relating to the execution of the Court's judgment in Kim v. Russia (no. 44260/13, §§ 41-57 and 68-74, 17 July 2014).

  The Court observes that the applicant did not allege that he had been kept at the relevant time in severely overcrowded conditions resulting, for instance, in him not having an individual sleeping place and having to take it in turns to sleep (see, by contrast, Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 18-19 and 41-57, 17 July 2014 concerning the same detention facility in 2013, and Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 199, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 13255/07

  Georgien ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 47741/16

  The Court observes that the applicant did not allege that he had been kept at the relevant time in severely overcrowded conditions resulting, for instance, in him not having an individual sleeping place and having to take it in turns to sleep (see, by contrast, Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 18-19 and 41-57, 17 July 2014 concerning the same detention facility in 2013, and Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 199, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 52722/15

  Asyl: Russland darf Syrer nicht abschieben

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 47741/16

  Having regard to the Court's findings in similar cases concerning the same legal framework (see S.K. v. Russia, no. 52722/15, §§ 110-17, 14 February 2017, with further references), and with particular regard to the context of the applicant's situation as a stateless person, the Court concludes that there have been violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as regards the applicant's detention, counting at least from late March 2016 to his release on 22 June 2017.

• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 10810/15

  SMADIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 47741/16

  There is no reason to consider that the applicant or his lawyer were not immediately aware of that decision or that it is relevant to take into account, for the purpose of applying the six-month rule, the decision dated 24 June 2016 taken in the review procedure under Article 30.12 of the CAO (see also Smadikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 10810/15, 31 January 2017).
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

  NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 47741/16

  Having regard to the available information, the parties' submissions and the scope of the present case, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the complaint as concerning the period from 15 December 2015 to 22 June 2017 (see, for the approach, albeit in the context of a continuous situation under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, Novokreshchin v. Russia (Committee), no. 40573/08, §§ 11-18, 27 November 2014, and Kalinin v. Russia (Committee), no. 54749/12, §§ 3 and 15, 19 February 2015).
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  KALININ v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 47741/16

  Having regard to the available information, the parties' submissions and the scope of the present case, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the complaint as concerning the period from 15 December 2015 to 22 June 2017 (see, for the approach, albeit in the context of a continuous situation under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, Novokreshchin v. Russia (Committee), no. 40573/08, §§ 11-18, 27 November 2014, and Kalinin v. Russia (Committee), no. 54749/12, §§ 3 and 15, 19 February 2015).
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 47741/16

  Should it facilitate payment of that sum, the Court considers it appropriate that the amount awarded to him by way of just satisfaction should be held in trust for him by his representative, Ms O. Tseytlina (compare Khamidkariyev v. Russia, no. 42332/14, § 171, 26 January 2017).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 25079/19

  M.L. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Ruling no. 14-P of 23 May 2017 by the Russian Constitutional Court concerning the constitutional requirement to have available an effective remedy against an unlawful or disproportionate deprivation of liberty is summarised in Mskhiladze v. Russia [Committee], no. 47741/16, 13 February 2018).
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 11556/17

  MAINOV v. RUSSIA

  Nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which the applicant complained about reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (compare with the Court's findings in respect of the same detention facility at the relevant period of time, Mskhiladze v. Russia, no. 47741/16, §§ 38-39, 13 February 2018, and contrast with the Court's findings in respect of a previous period, Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 17-22, 31-35, 17 July 2014, and M.S.A. and Others v. Russia, no. 29957/14 and 8 others, § 58, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23019/15

  ALIMURADOV v. RUSSIA

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and its practice in similar cases (see Mskhiladze v. Russia, no. 47741/16, § 64, 13 February 2018), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1, 000 covering costs under all heads, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, payable into the account of the Anti-Discrimination Centre Memorial (ADC Memorial) in Belgium.
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 48352/19

  TEWELDE AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

  Ruling no. 14-P of 23 May 2017 by the Russian Constitutional Court concerning the constitutional requirement to have available an effective remedy against an unlawful or disproportionate deprivation of liberty is summarised in Mskhiladze v. Russia ([Committee], no. 47741/16, § 29, 13 February 2018).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 8279/16

  MARDONSHOYEV v. RUSSIA

  As regards the subsequent period, the Court has been unable to find indications of a severe overcrowding or any other factors entailing a violation of Article 3 (see Mskhiladze v. Russia, no. 47741/16, §§ 38-39, 13 February 2018, and Mainov v. Russia, no. 11556/17, § 19, 15 May 2018).