Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,16117
EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,16117)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.01.2012 - 57541/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,16117)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. Januar 2012 - 57541/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,16117)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,16117) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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)

 
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 ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

  • EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

    CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09
    It is however necessary, among other conditions, that the danger be a plausible one and the measure appropriate, in the light of the circumstances of the case and in particular the past history and personality of the person concerned (see, among others, Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 40, Series A no. 225, and Paradysz v. France, no. 17020/05, § 71, 29 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

    W. c. SUISSE

    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, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

    TOMASI c. FRANCE

    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, 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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09
    It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (see 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, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09
    Regarding the issue of health care in detention facilities, the Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his 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 ensured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • 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, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

    Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09
    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 psychological 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, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

    McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

    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, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

    D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09
    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 well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see, in various contexts, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-IV; Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, §§ 27-35, 23 September 2010; and Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, §§ 65-67, 28 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 21727/08

    POST v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

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

  • EGMR, 10.11.2009 - 21425/06

    Nichteinhaltung der 6-Monatsfrist des Artikels 35 Abs. 1 MRK

  • EGMR, 12.11.2009 - 37390/04

    BARYSHNIKOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 33929/03

    ALEKSANDR LEONIDOVICH IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

    BORIS POPOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

  • EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  • EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 27824/95

    POSTI AND RAHKO v. FINLAND

  • EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 50357/99

    CAMBERROW MM5 AD v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

    DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA

    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, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

    SADRETDINOV v. RUSSIA

    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, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

    SERGEY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the basis of the gravity of the charges and using formulaic reasoning without addressing the specific facts of the case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 106 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; 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; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 142-49, 22 May 2012).
     
  • EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 18785/13

    KOUTALIDIS c. GRÈCE

    La Cour a aussi à plusieurs reprises considéré que la référence de manière stéréotypée à la gravité des infractions et au risque de commission de nouvelles infractions ne suffit pas pour justifier le maintien en détention ni pour dispenser les autorités d'examiner la situation particulière du requérant et d'envisager des mesures alternatives à la détention (Sutyagin c. Russie, no 30024/02, 3 mai 2011; Khodorkovskiy c. Russie, no 5829/04, 31 mai 2011, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, 11 octobre 2011, Valeriy Samoylov c. Russie, no 57541/09, 24 janvier 2012, et Vyatkin c. Russie, no 18813/06, § 53, 11 avril 2013).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 78682/14

    CHANIOTIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

    Par ailleurs, elle note que les intéressés ne fournissent aucun détail concernant leur état de santé ou les problèmes médicaux qui pourraient les affecter personnellement et qu'ils ne font pas non plus état de manière précise et documentée d'un manque de diligence dont les autorités auraient fait preuve à leur égard (Strucl et autres c. Slovénie, nos 5903/10, 6003/10 et 6544/10, § 67, 20 octobre 2011, et Valeriy Samoylov c. Russie, no 57541/09, § 80, 24 janvier 2012).
  • EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 33352/15

    ARFAN ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

    Par ailleurs, elle note que les intéressés ne fournissent aucun détail concernant leur état de santé ou les problèmes médicaux qui pourraient les affecter personnellement et qu'ils ne font pas non plus état de manière précise et documentée d'un manque de diligence dont les autorités auraient fait preuve à leur égard (Strucl et autres c. Slovénie, nos 5903/10 et 2 autres, § 67, 20 octobre 2011, et Valeriy Samoïlov c. Russie, no 57541/09, § 80, 24 janvier 2012).
  • EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

    RAMKOVSKI v.

    It is however necessary, among other conditions, that the danger be a plausible one and the measure appropriate, in the light of the circumstances of the case and in particular the history and personality of the person concerned (see Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, § 109, 24 January 2012, with further references).
  • EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10

    DERGALEV v. RUSSIA

    It has found violations of that Article on the grounds that domestic courts had extended applicants" detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae, without addressing applicants" specific situations or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other examples, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 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; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
  • EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 29769/09

    YUGAY v. RUSSIA

    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 other examples, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 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; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
  • EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10

    RODKIN v. RUSSIA

    The Court has already examined a large number of 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 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 examples, Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; 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, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10

    DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 22727/08

    PLOTNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  • 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, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12

    MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 12863/14

    MEKRAS c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10

    SHEPEL v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 31691/10

    ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08

    NAZAROV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34942/05

    KOLKUTIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 76629/14

    CLEMENTS c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR - 4613/09 (anhängig)

    SYASKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13

    LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 45847/15

    KOTSOCHILIS c. GRÈCE

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