Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VALERIY SAMOYLOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (82)Zitiert selbst (33)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  The national authorities must establish the existence of specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighed the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 62 and 63, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  The Court reiterates that the risk of flight should be assessed with reference to various factors, especially those relating to the character of the person involved, his morals, his home, his occupation, his assets, his family ties and all kinds of links with the country in which he is being prosecuted (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 10, Series A no. 8; Shenoyev v. Russia, no. 2563/06, § 55, 10 June 2010; and Sciebura v. Poland, no. 39412/08, § 30, 15 February 2011).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  It should be established whether the other grounds given by the authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 44, ECHR 2006-X).

• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  In addition, detention will continue to be legitimate only if public order actually remains threatened; its continuation cannot be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Kemmache v. France, 27 November 1991, § 52, Series A no. 218, and Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 91, Series A no. 241-A).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  As to the risk of obstruction of the proceedings, the national authorities should have regard to pertinent factors such as the advancement of the investigation or judicial proceedings and their resumption, or any other specific indications justifying the fear that the applicant might abuse his regained liberty by carrying out acts aimed, for instance, at the falsification or destruction of evidence (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 36, Series A no. 254-A).
• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  The Court should determine whether during the relevant period of detention the applicant needed regular medical care, whether he was deprived of it as he claims, and if so whether this amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 53, 2 December 2004, and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 78, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  The Court should determine whether during the relevant period of detention the applicant needed regular medical care, whether he was deprived of it as he claims, and if so whether this amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 53, 2 December 2004, and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 78, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  In so far as they may be understood to rely on the protection of public order as a ground for detention, the Court notes that it does not appear that Russian law recognised prejudice to public order caused by an offence as a ground for detention (see Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 137, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  On the whole, while taking into consideration "the practical demands of imprisonment" the Court reserves sufficient flexibility in deciding, on a case-by-case basis, whether any deficiencies in medical care were "compatible with the human dignity" of a detainee (see Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 140, 22 December 2008).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  Thus, although Article 3 cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds save for exceptional cases (see Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI, and Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001), a lack of appropriate medical treatment may raise an issue under Article 3, even if the applicant's state of health does not require his immediate release.
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2563/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.10.2009 - 17020/05

  PARADYSZ c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 39412/08

  SCIEBURA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 7390/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 21425/06

  Nichteinhaltung der 6-Monatsfrist des Artikels 35 Abs. 1 MRK
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 27824/95
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 21727/08

  POST v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 50357/99

  CAMBERROW MM5 AD v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 31242/05

  VLADIMIR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 33929/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.11.2009 - 37390/04

  BARYSHNIKOVA v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

  Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

  It has found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other authorities, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; and Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016).
• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Khudoyorov, cited above; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

  FORTALNOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on numerous occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and has found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention whilst essentially relying on the gravity of the charges and using stereotypical formulae, without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016; and Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, §§ 138-40, 7 November 2017).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

  KORYAK v. RUSSIA

  In some similar cases the Court has concluded that the domestic authorities afforded the applicants comprehensive, effective and transparent medical assistance (see, among recent cases, Schebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, 10 April 2012, §§ 76-77, and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012, §§ 92-93).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  [ENG]

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts' failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants' detention (see, among many others, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 13182/04

  KUTEPOV v. RUSSIA

  The relevant domestic law concerning the provision of medical assistance at detention facilities is set out in the Court's judgment in Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, §§ 52-53, 24 January 2012.

  A credible complaint should normally include, among other things, sufficient reference to the medical condition in question, the medical prescriptions that were sought, made or refused, and some evidence - for instance, expert reports - capable of disclosing serious failings in the applicant's medical care (see Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, § 80, 24 January 2012).

• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  57541/09.
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

  A credible complaint should normally include, among other things, sufficient reference to the medical condition in question, medical prescriptions that were sought, made or refused, and some evidence - for instance, expert reports - capable of disclosing serious failings in the applicant's medical care (see Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, § 80, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 41858/08

  IDALOV v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 27335/13

  SHALYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08

  M.S. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.09.2016 - 1574/06

  SAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 13579/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 60882/12 (anhängig)

  AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 4336/06

  MANSUROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 61582/10

  SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 45392/11

  PUSHCHELENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 18813/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8026/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.07.2023 - 44033/17

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 27728/08

  BYKOVTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 49108/11

  SAMOYLOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 5406/07

  KRIVOLAPOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  RAMKOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

  NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 41545/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 34180/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  KALININ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 51445/09 (anhängig)

  ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 6277/06

  LYUBUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 9414/13

  SOKIL v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 78682/14

  CHANIOTIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51389/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 16120/07

  GORBATENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 8681/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 43174/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 33352/15

  ARFAN ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 8685/15

  SIBANOV v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10

  DERGALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 29769/09

  YUGAY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10

  RODKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10

  DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 7955/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 69863/13

  DAVLYASHOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52431/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 5969/09

  RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09

  MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 57215/09

  BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19857/09

  URMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 676/09

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 38911/07

  TUMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 22727/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12

  MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 41472/06

  CHERNOYVAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 12863/14

  MEKRAS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 7243/10

  YEVSTRATOV AND RUDAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34942/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 9994/06

  PODDUBNYY AND BABKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10

  SHEPEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 5212/13

  SAVINOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 31691/10

  ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 3243/06

  LOSEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 4613/09 (anhängig)

  SYASKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2025 - 38198/19

  TÜRK c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08

  NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 76629/14

  CLEMENTS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 42080/11

  ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 7087/04

  ALEKSANDR NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 1750/11

  SAMOYLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 63392/09

  SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 25071/07

  DZHAVADOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13

  LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 80015/12

  DEVTEROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 45847/15

  KOTSOCHILIS c. GRÈCE