Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
RESHETNYAK v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (87) Zitiert selbst (39)
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
The Court insists that, in particular, authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko, cited above, § 100; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 84, 21 December 2010; Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 85, 11 October 2011; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov, cited above, § 211).In particular, while accepting the Government's argument that the applicant was provided with anti-tuberculosis treatment, it reiterates that the mere fact that a detainee is seen by a doctor and prescribed a certain form of treatment cannot automatically lead to the conclusion that the medical assistance was adequate (see Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 89, 21 December 2010, with further references).
- EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.A failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the validity of the applicant's allegations (see, among other authorities, Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 59, 28 May 2009, and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
Accordingly, the Court does not consider that the prison authorities would have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 35 of the Convention (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A no. 61): in deciding on a complaint concerning conditions of detention or an inmate's medical care for which they were responsible, they would in reality be judges in their own cause (see Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, § 55, 4 October 2011; and, more recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 113-118, 10 January 2012; and Ismatullayev v. Russia (dec.), § 26, 6 March 2012).42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 113-118, 10 January 2012).
- EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02
Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
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, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
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 part of 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)). - EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04
BURDOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98
VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
In a number of cases the Court has found that the freedom of movement allowed to inmates in a colony and unobstructed access to natural light and air have served as sufficient compensation for the scarce allocation of space per convict (see, among others, Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103 and 107, 24 July 2001; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004; Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009; and Orlov, cited above, § 77). - EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
POPOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
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 of deprivation of liberty 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, cited above, §§ 92-94, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
The Court insists that, in particular, authorities must ensure that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 115, 29 November 2007; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006; Yevgeniy Alekseyenko, cited above, § 100; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 84, 21 December 2010; Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 85, 11 October 2011; and, mutatis mutandis, Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 121, 7 November 2006), and that, where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at adequately treating the detainee's health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109, 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov, cited above, § 211). - EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
LIND v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
MELNIK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05
HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03
SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06
YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 36898/03
TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02
NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03
BELASHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03
ROMAN KARASEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
SUDARKOV v. RUSSIA
- EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94
GIBAS c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 05.12.2000 - 39615/98
MOTIERE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.09.2009 - 15010/04
SHKURENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
- EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
- EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
- EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
- EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02
VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
- EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 21071/05
WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
- EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04
YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02
POPOV AND VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA
- BVerfG, 19.05.2023 - 2 BvR 78/22
Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerde eines Strafgefangenen wegen Versagung einer …
Bereits zuvor hatte er in mehreren Entscheidungen darauf hingewiesen, dass eine verschuldensabhängige Staatshaftung ("conditional on the establishment of fault") in Konstellationen, in denen regelmäßig ein Entschädigungsanspruch bestehe, den Anforderungen der Konvention nicht gerecht werde (vgl. in Bezug auf menschenunwürdige Haftbedingungen EGMR, Reshetnyak v. Russia, Urteil vom 8. Januar 2013, Nr. 56027/10, § 67; Ananyev and others v. Russia, Urteil vom 10. Januar 2012, Nr. 42525/07 und 60800/08, § 113, jeweils m.w.N.). - EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6780/18
ROTH v. GERMANY and 1 other application
In these circumstances, making the award of compensation conditional on the claimant's ability to prove fault on the part of the authorities and the unlawfulness of their actions may render existing remedies ineffective (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 109, ECHR 2009; Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 229, and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 66-67, 8 January 2013 with further references). - EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08
IVKO v. RUSSIA
The Court further observes that it has on many occasions examined the effectiveness of the domestic remedies suggested by the Government, namely lodging a complaint with the authorities of a detention facility, prosecutor's office or a court (see, among many other authorities, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).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, Patranin v. Russia, no. 12983/14, 23 July 2015; Gorelov v. Russia, no. 49072/11, 9 January 2014; Budanov v. Russia, no. 66583/11, 9 January 2014; Bubnov v. Russia, no. 76317/11, 5 February 2013; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, 27 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, 8 January 2013).
The delay in conducting the applicant's test was a breach of the WHO's recommendations and risked depriving the treatment the applicant received of its major therapeutic effects (see Kushnir v. Ukraine, no. 42184/09, § 146, 11 December 2014; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, § 86, 8 January 2013; and Pakhomov v. Russia, no. 44917/08, § 67, 30 September 2010).
- EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09
GORBULYA v. RUSSIA
42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 25-48, 10 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013.A civil claim for compensation under the tort provisions of the Civil Code, such as those cited by the Government by way of example, cannot offer the applicant any other redress than a purely compensatory award and cannot put an end to a situation where there is an on-going violation, such as lack of personal space or of specific accommodation in a given detention facility, or inadequate medical care (see Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).
- 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).Having assessed a civil claim for compensation under the tort provisions of the Civil Code, the Court considered that such a claim could not offer an applicant any other redress than a purely compensatory award, and could not put an end to a situation where there is an ongoing violation, such as inadequate medical care (see Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).
- EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 28333/13
TSELOVALNIK v. RUSSIA
The provisions of domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013).Having assessed a civil claim for compensation under the tort provisions of the Civil Code, the Court considered that such a claim could not offer an applicant any redress other than a purely compensatory award and could not put an end to a situation where there was an ongoing violation, such as inadequate medical care (see Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 32863/13
LITVINOV v. RUSSIA
Having assessed a civil claim for compensation under the tort provisions of the Civil Code, the Court considered that such a claim could not offer an applicant any other redress than a purely compensatory award, and could not put an end to a situation where there was an ongoing violation, such as inadequate medical care (see Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).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, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13
KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA
The provisions of domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012); and Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013).Having assessed a civil claim for compensation under the tort provisions of the Civil Code, the Court considered that such a claim could not offer an applicant any other redress than a purely compensatory award and could not put an end to a situation where there was an ongoing violation, such as inadequate medical care (see Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).
- EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13
DENISOV v. RUSSIA
The provisions of domestic law establishing the legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November 2012; and Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013.Having assessed a civil claim for compensation under the tort provisions of the Civil Code, the Court considered that such a claim could not offer an applicant any redress other than a purely compensatory award and could not put an end to a situation where there is an ongoing violation, such as inadequate medical care (see Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013).
- EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 61582/10
SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
The provisions of domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in the following judgments: Patranin v. Russia (no. 12983/14, §§ 86-88, 23 July 2015); Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013); Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November); and Koryak v. Russia (no. 24677/10, §§ 46-57, 13 November 2012).The Court has on many occasions found there to be a lack of effective domestic remedies in Russia through which to complain of the poor quality of medical treatment in detention (see, among many other authorities, Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 86-93, 13 November 2012; Reshetnyak v. Russia, no. 56027/10, §§ 65-73, 8 January 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 56-58, 6 March 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 106, 4 December 2014; Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, §§ 86-89, 24 May 2016; and Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 66-70, 14 June 2016).
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13
KHALVASH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 66823/12
NIZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 62812/12
BULAVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 33690/12
BALKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 60627/09
YUNZEL v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES
- EGMR, 26.10.2017 - 28923/09
AZZOLINA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE et 1 autre affaire
- EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 51252/09
BARSUKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13
KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.02.2026 - 4743/21
Russland wegen Nawalny-Inhaftierung verurteilt: "Muster der Missachtung von …
- EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 5666/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.07.2026 - 20332/17
CHERTOK v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 44694/13
KOLESNIKOVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 42184/09
KUSHNIR v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 54547/16
SHIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06
VASENIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 42147/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 66583/11
BUDANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14
ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.11.2024 - 38875/20
VAKULENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.04.2024 - 58032/19
SUNTSOV v. RUSSIA and 47 other applications
- EGMR, 18.04.2024 - 46924/19
GORBUNOV v. RUSSIA and 49 other applications
- EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 24710/06
YAROVENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 42526/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.06.2024 - 11439/21
KIRILLOV v. RUSSIA and 23 other applications
- EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 41090/18
RESIN v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 16179/14
BUTRIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.06.2024 - 20864/18
KISLOV v. RUSSIA and 8 other applications
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 2301/19
MELESHCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 55025/17
AKHPOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 38777/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49106/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 12646/15
MAYLENSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 58262/10
KAZAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 15407/19
KUDRYAVTSEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 28714/18
DANILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 2556/18
PISAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 69591/17
YERUSLANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 17492/16
NUSALOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 35105/10
KOLESNIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 24051/11
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 12987/15
KONDRULIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 53120/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.03.2025 - 47120/22
GORDIYENOK v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 06.06.2024 - 35773/18
YANOV v. RUSSIA and 7 other applications
- EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 62239/12
KAYMAK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE et 1 autre affaire
- EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 1354/19
GROMOV AND BARBOLIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 27314/20
PONKRATENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 49371/18
KULACHINSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 9361/18
ANDRIYANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 81595/17
ROMANENKO AND SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 29389/19
YEPIKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 79688/16
CHERNOUSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 1993/17
KOZIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 6800/09
SOCIÉTÉ À RESPONSABILITÉ LIMITÉE AKPAZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 52873/11
PETROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 9678/09
SEKRETAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 8741/15
PASHKEVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12
PISKUNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.12.2022 - 29606/19
GVOZDEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 19504/19
GILEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 69176/17
TEPLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 29214/09
SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME IPEK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.12.2017 - 70371/13
KOROTEYEV AND SITARSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 56220/15
AMIROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08
NAUMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 66231/14
DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 52025/13
MUMRYAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12
GUSEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 20077/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 45095/19
MIKHALEV AND SAVINOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 82816/17
BANCHILA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 71325/16
KALMYKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 62123/16
POLITAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 8720/12
PARYGINA AND BULIN v. RUSSIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".