Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KORKIN v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 48416/09

  Such an approach may suggest that there was no genuine judicial review of the need for detention at each extension of detention (see Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 50 et seq., Series A no. 319-A).

  In any event, the Court reiterates that the applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in his or her defence (see, among other numerous authorities, Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 66, Series A no. 319-A).

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 48416/09

  The general principles concerning the lawfulness of pre-trial detention are well established in the Court's case-law and have been summarised as follows (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts):.

  Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention without a judicial decision based on concrete grounds and without setting a specific time-limit would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, 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 (compare, among other authorities, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Vasiliy Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 16264/05, § 73, 19 February 2013).

• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 48416/09

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 48416/09

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him or her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his or her health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 48416/09

  Nor can the continuation of detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 48416/09

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).".
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 48416/09

  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).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 48416/09

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).".
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 48416/09

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him or her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his or her health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16264/05

  VASILIY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 48416/09

  Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention without a judicial decision based on concrete grounds and without setting a specific time-limit would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, 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 (compare, among other authorities, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Vasiliy Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 16264/05, § 73, 19 February 2013).

• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09

  TKACHUK c. RUSSIE

  La Cour estime que les conclusions du juge interne selon lesquelles le requérant risquait d'entraver le cours de la justice ou d'influencer les témoins n'étaient basées sur aucun élément factuel concret (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres sur ces points, G. c. Russie, no 42526/07, §§ 116-117, 21 juin 2016, Korkin c. Russie, no 48416/09, §§ 93-94, 12 novembre 2015, et Valeriy Kovalenko c. Russie, no 41716/08, §§ 43-45, 29 mai 2012).
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09

  UTVENKO ET BORISOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a souvent conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention dans les affaires où les tribunaux internes avaient maintenu le requérant en détention en invoquant essentiellement la gravité des charges et en recourant à des formules stéréotypées sans évoquer des faits précis ou sans envisager d'autres mesures préventives (G. c. Russie, no 42526/07, §§ 114-119, 21 juin 2016, Korkin c. Russie, no 48416/09, §§ 88-96, 12 novembre 2015, Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, §§ 108-111, 27 novembre 2012, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 121-133, 11 octobre 2011, et Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, §§ 88-98, 30 juillet 2009 et autres).
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a souvent conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention dans les affaires où les tribunaux internes avaient maintenu le requérant en détention en invoquant essentiellement la gravité des charges et en recourant à des formules stéréotypées sans évoquer de faits précis ou sans envisager d'autres mesures préventives (Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, §§ 88-98, 30 juillet 2009, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 121-133, 11 octobre 2011, Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, §§ 108-111, 27 novembre 2012, Korkin c. Russie, no 48416/09, §§ 88-96, 12 novembre 2015, et G. c. Russie, no 42526/07, §§ 114-119, 21 juin 2016).
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 47537/11

  SKOROBOGATOVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires, dont celles dirigées contre la Russie, sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention quant aux conditions de détention et de transport de détenus (voir, par exemple, Dudchenko c. Russie, no 37717/05, §§ 116-123, 7 novembre 2017, Yaroslav Belousov c. Russie, nos 2653/13 et 60980/14, §§ 103-111, 4 octobre 2016, M.S. c. Russie, no 8589/08, §§ 71-77, 10 juillet 2014, Vyatkin c. Russie, no 18813/06, §§ 36-44, 11 avril 2013, et Ananyev et autres c. Russie, nos 42525/07 et 60800/08, §§ 160-166, 10 janvier 2012), de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention quant à la durée de la détention provisoire de détenus (G. c. Russie, no 42526/07, §§ 114-119, 21 juin 2016, Korkin c. Russie, no 48416/09, §§ 88-96, 12 novembre 2015, Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, §§ 108-111, 27 novembre 2012, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 121-133, 11 octobre 2011, et Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, §§ 88-98, 30 juillet 2009) ainsi que de l'article 8 de la Convention quant au droit de détenus de bénéficier de visites familiales en prison (Andrey Smirnov c. Russie, no 43149/10, §§ 39-43, 13 février 2018, Moïsseïev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 248-251, 9 octobre 2008, et Vlassov c. Russie, no 78146/01, §§ 123-127, 12 juin 2008).