Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08, 52133/08, 6023/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,16737
EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08, 52133/08, 6023/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,16737)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.01.2012 - 43710/07, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08, 52133/08, 6023/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,16737)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Januar 2012 - 43710/07, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08, 52133/08, 6023/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,16737)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,16737) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ...

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
    The Court reiterates that, in contrast to an objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which must be raised by the respondent Government, it cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia, no. 6954/02, § 80, 29 January 2009; Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I; and also Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-...).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
    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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
    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 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 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, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

    Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
    However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).
  • EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 27824/95

    POSTI AND RAHKO v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
    The concept of a "continuing situation" refers to a state of affairs in which there are continuous activities by or on the part of the State which render the applicant a victim (see Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-VII).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
    Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake (see, among others, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 26, ECHR 2004-VII; and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey [GC], 16 September 1996, § 168, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
    A failure on their part to submit convincing evidence on material conditions of detention may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
    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 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 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, 12.10.2006 - 72277/01

    DVOYNYKH v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
    Nevertheless, where an applicant was released but subsequently re-detained, the Court limited the scope of its examination to the later period (see Belashev v. Russia, no. 28617/03, § 48, 4 December 2008; Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, § 83, 15 November 2007; and Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 46, 12 October 2006).
  • EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

    TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
    Complaints which have as their source specific events which occurred on identifiable dates cannot be construed as referring to a continuing situation (see Nevmerzgitskiy v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 58825/00, 25 November 2003, where the applicant was subjected to force-feeding, and Tarariyeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 4353/03, 11 October 2005, where the applicant's son was denied medical assistance).
  • EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

    BELASHEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 6954/02

    MALTABAR AND MALTABAR v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

    GUBIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

    NEDAYBORSHCH v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

    GRISHIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

    VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

    43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, § 138, 17 January 2012; and Dmitriy Rozhin v. Russia, no. 4265/06, § 53, 23 October 2012), freedom of movement afforded to inmates and unobstructed access to natural light and air (see, for example, Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009), and relative lengthy daily periods for outdoor exercises and freedom of movement within the prison building (see Sulejmanovic v. Italy, no. 22635/03, §§ 48-52, 16 July 2009).
  • EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 8461/20

    GORBENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    43710/07 and 5 others, §§ 139-145, 17 January 2012, regarding inappropriate interference with the right of individual petition.
  • EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 32541/08

    Keine Käfige für Angeklagte

    La Cour a précédemment jugé que, en cas de répétition des mêmes faits, par exemple le transfèrement d'un requérant entre son centre de détention et le tribunal, quand bien même l'opération n'aurait eu lieu que certains jours et n'aurait pas revêtu un caractère continu, l'absence de variations notables dans les conditions de transport d'une fois à l'autre avait fait naître une « situation continue'propre à faire passer toute la période dénoncée sous sa compétence (Fetisov et autres c. Russie, nos 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 et 52133/08, § 75, 17 janvier 2012).
  • EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

    STRAZIMIRI v. ALBANIA

    The Court finds that, having regard to the continuous nature of the applicant's confinement in the Prison Hospital, where he has been kept since 2011, the persistent conditions of detention, the lack of adequate medical treatment of which he complains and the pending judicial proceedings, his complaints under Articles 3 and 5 refer to a "continuing situation" (see, for example, Alimov v. Turkey, no. 14344/13, § 57-62, 6 September 2016; Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07 and 5 Others, § 75, 17 January 2012; and Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 116 ECHR 2006-III (extracts)).
  • 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 - 74141/10 (anhängig)

    IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

    Par conséquent, conformément à sa jurisprudence en matière du calcul du délai de six mois dans les affaires relatives aux conditions de détention (Fetisov et autres c. Russie, no 43710/07 et 3 autres, §§ 72-78, 17 janvier 2012), elle ne peut établir si les conditions de détention du requérant du 18 juillet et 30 novembre 2007 étaient en substance similaires à celles qu'il avait connues pendant la période du 18 janvier au 18 juillet 2007 dans la maison d'arrêt SIZO-2.
  • EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 16870/03

    VIKULOV AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

    While mindful of the objective difficulties of detained persons in substantiating their complaints concerning conditions of detention, the Court has consistently held that they are nevertheless required to submit a credible and reasonably detailed description of the facts (see Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, § 90, 17 January 2012) which is consistent and, as far as possible, supported by evidence (see, among other authorities, Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 108, ECHR 2006-XV, and, more recently, Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 53, 12 January 2012), whereas failure by the Government to provide information in their possession capable of corroborating or refuting such allegations may give rise to the drawing of interferences as to the well-founded character of the applicant's complaints (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 254, ECHR 2004-III).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 33172/16

    CHALDAYEV c. RUSSIE

    Par ailleurs, la Cour a appliqué le principe d'une « situation continue'dans des affaires concernant les conditions de transfert d'un requérant entre son centre de détention et le tribunal (Fetisov et autres c. Russie, nos 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 et 52133/08, § 75, 17 janvier 2012) ou bien l'enfermement de requérants dans une cage de métal à l'intérieur du prétoire chaque fois qu'ils étaient conduits de leur centre de détention au tribunal pour y suivre leur procès (Svinarenko et Slyadnev, précité, § 86).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 18791/13

    NEKRASOV c. RUSSIE

    Elle observe ensuite que la description faite par le requérant des autres conditions matérielles dans cette cellule (paragraphes 9-10 ci-dessus) ne permet pas de conclure à l'existence d'un grief défendable sur le terrain de l'article 3 de la Convention (Fetisov et autres c. Russie, nos 43710/07 et 5 autres, § 125, 17 janvier 2012).
  • EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

    MOROZOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court further reiterates that, in contrast with an objection on the basis of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which must be raised by the respondent Government, it is not open to it to dispense with the application of the six-month rule solely because the respondent Government have not made an objection to that effect (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III; Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 71; Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, § 72, 17 January 2012; and Musaev v. Turkey, no. 72754/11, § 46, 21 October 2014).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 4963/06

    KURUSHIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 6521/07

    MYSIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 33302/08

    VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht