Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5,, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 (one period of detention) Violation of Art. 3 (other period of detention) Violation of Art. 5-1 Not necessary to examine under Art. 5-2 5-3 and 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 Pecuniary damage - State to ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.11.2004 - 5140/02
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

Wird zitiert von ... (31)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

  PANTEA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4. The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 49, ECHR 2002-X; Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, judgment of 3 June 2003, § 262).
• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 15021/02

  WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, § 35 et seq., 18 November 2004; Zhovner v. Ukraine, no. 56848/00, § 37 et seq., 29 June 2004; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34 et seq., ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  The assessment of this level is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  The assessment of this level is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 16483/12

  Lampedusa-Haft war illegal

  It discloses a most grave violation of that provision and is incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; and Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  In view of the above, the Court finds that this period constituted unrecorded and unacknowledged detention, which, in the Court's constant view, is a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a most grave violation of that provision (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva, cited above, § 87; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 73, 2 October 2008; and Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, §§ 71-72, 4 November 2010; see also Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports 1998-III, and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 157, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 12.05.2017 - 21980/04

  SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE

  It discloses a most grave violation of that provision and is incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 45, 19 January 2012; and Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports 1998-III).

 
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 44290/07

  SABEVA v. BULGARIA

  A failure on their part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may therefore give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 163, ECHR 2005-VIII; Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 60, 25 October 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Yordanov v. Bulgaria, no. 56856/00, § 83, 10 August 2006; Staykov v. Bulgaria, no. 49438/99, § 74, 12 October 2006; Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 55712/00, § 48, 7 February 2008; and Gavazov, cited above, § 95).

  The Government, on the other hand, had ample opportunity to investigate the conditions in which the applicant was detained, by, for instance, conducting an on-site inspection and questioning the hospital staff or other witnesses (see, mutatis mutandis, Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 61, 25 October 2005).

• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it, must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-...).

  It also noted that the unsatisfactory conditions of his detention had exacerbated the mental anguish caused by the unlawful nature of his detention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 67, 25 October 2005).

• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 10511/10

  MURRAY v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Cette liste n'est pas exhaustive, et d'autres aspects des conditions de détention peuvent amener la Cour à conclure que le seuil d'inacceptabilité de la souffrance ou de l'humiliation a été franchi et que, dès lors, le requérant a été soumis à des « traitements inhumains ou dégradants'(voir, par exemple, Fedotov c. Russie, no 5140/02, § 68, 25 octobre 2005, et Trepashkin c. Russie, no 36898/03, § 94, 19 juillet 2007).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04

  MAKHMUDOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4. The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 83, 25 October 2005, and N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 49, ECHR 2002-X).
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)

  That list is not exhaustive; other conditions of detention may lead the Court to the conclusion that the applicant was subjected to "inhuman or degrading treatment" (see, for example, Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 68, 25 October 2005; Trepashkin (no. 1), cited above, § 94; and Slyusarev v. Russia, no. 60333/00, § 36, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 10638/08

  ALEKHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4. The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 83, 25 October 2005, and N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 49, ECHR 2002-X).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4. The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 83, 25 October 2005, and N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 49, ECHR 2002-X).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09

  TKACHUK c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 25664/09

  DANALACHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 61485/08

  BREGA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00

  DOBREV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 47837/06

  RAKHIMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 33475/08

  WLOCH v. POLAND (No. 2)
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  BAZJAKS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 2278/03

  LOPATIN AND MEDVEDSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 42940/06

  GOVORUSHKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35919/05

  BIRULEV AND SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 50717/09

  LEVINTA v. MOLDOVA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  BORIS POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 19206/03

  BRUCZYNSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 57953/16

  KORNAUS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04

  SIZAREV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  VENSKUTE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 31244/06

  LOVEIKA v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 20289/02

  GUTU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 13182/04

  KUTEPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 52100/08

  BREGA v. MOLDOVA