Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations de l'art. 3 Violation de l'art. 13 (aucun recours quant aux mauvais traitements) Violations de l'art. 5-1 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Aucune question distincte au regard des art. 5-4 et 13 (aucun droit à un double degré de juridiction) Dommage matériel - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MENESHEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 (no remedy in respect of ill-treatment) Violations of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 No separate issues under Art. 5-4 and 13 (no right to appeal) Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 59261/00
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

Wird zitiert von ... (101)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  The Court reiterates that a right of recourse against a faulty judicial decision is not recognised as a general guarantee (see Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 25, Series A no. 11).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  As regards Article 13, the Court observes that Article 6 § 1 is a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, in other words the requirements of Article 13 are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, those of Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 110, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  The Court observes that in order to determine whether an offence qualifies as "criminal" for the purposes of the Convention, it is first necessary to ascertain whether or not the provision defining the offence belongs, in the legal system of the respondent State, to criminal law; next the "very nature of the offence" and the degree of severity of the penalty risked must be considered (see OÌ?ztuÌ?rk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 50, Series A no. 73, and Demicoli v. Malta, 27 August 1991, §§ 31-34, Series A no. 210).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  As a general rule, if a single remedy does not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; see also Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 75, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  The Court reiterates that "[w]here an individual, when taken in police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  As a general rule, if a single remedy does not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; see also Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 75, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  This investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VIII, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  The Court reiterates that "[w]here an individual, when taken in police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 13057/87

  DEMICOLI v. MALTA
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57947/00

  ISSAIEVA, YOUSSOUPOVA ET BAZAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00

• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  As to the domestic legal classification, the Court has previously found that the sphere defined in the Russian and some other legal systems as "administrative" embraces some offences that are criminal in nature but too trivial to be governed by criminal law and procedure (see Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  The Court reiterates that the applicability of Article 6 falls to be assessed on the basis of the three criteria outlined in the Engel judgment, namely the legal classification of the offence under national law; the nature of the offence; and the degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risked incurring (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 82-83, Series A no. 22; Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 50, Series A no. 73; Demicoli v. Malta, 27 August 1991, §§ 31-34, Series A no. 210; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 95-98, ECHR 2006-III; Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• 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, 20.09.2016 - 926/08

  KARELIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously examined applications relating to the administrative offence proceedings under Russian law and found violations of Article 6 of the Convention, in particular on account of the fairness requirement (see Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 94-100, ECHR 2006-III; Malofeyeva, cited above, §§ 97-120; Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, §§ 36-69, 3 October 2013; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 81-94, 31 July 2014; and Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 76-85, 4 December 2014).
• EGMR, 12.05.2017 - 21980/04

  SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE

  The Government failed to present the applicant with his order of arrest and to inform him of his defence rights upon arrest (see judgment, § 127), to assign him a lawyer upon arrest (see judgment, § 101), to promptly notify his parents of his detention, and to keep proper records of his custody.[8] Failure by a State to keep proper records in relation to the events surrounding an accused's detention, the reasons for it, and its duration, as well as regarding whether the accused was duly notified of his defence rights upon arrest has been held by this Court to constitute a violation of Article 5 (see Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 45, 19 January 2012, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III).[9].

  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, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

  The Court reiterates that in order to determine whether an offence qualifies as "criminal" for the purposes of Article 6 the Convention, it is necessary to ascertain whether or not the provision defining the offence belongs, in the legal system of the respondent State, to the criminal law; the "very nature of the offence" and the degree of severity of the penalty risked must then be considered (see Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 95, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2279, § 64; Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1891-92, §§ 83-84 and 86; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, in respect of Russia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006).

  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; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006; and Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, pp. 1185-86, § 125).

• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that in order to determine whether an offence qualifies as "criminal" for the purposes of Article 6 the Convention, it is necessary to ascertain whether or not the provision defining the offence belongs, in the legal system of the respondent State, to the criminal law; the "very nature of the offence" and the degree of severity of the penalty risked must then be considered (see Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 95, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 43002/20

  POGIBKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The minimum standards of effectiveness laid down by the Court's case-law include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, mutatis mutandis, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 54381/08

  TSVETKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  While sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 1 of Article 5 finds its usual application in relation to criminal proceedings, which are related to "a determination of a criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court has previously examined, with reference to the "criminal" limbs of Article 6 § 1 and Article 5 § 1, complaints relating to administrative-offence proceedings (see, among many others, Makhmudov, cited above, §§ 80-86; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 94-98, ECHR 2006-III; Mikhaylova, cited above, §§ 57-74; and Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, § 42, 20 September 2016).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 21272/03

  SAKHNOVSKI c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 16563/11

  ARRIBAS ANTON c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 55759/07

  MARESTI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

  FORTALNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53785/09

  TOMASOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99

  COBZARU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 10853/16

  MYRONYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 67360/11

  HUSEYNLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

  DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 8933/05

  TOMASZEWSCY c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 60259/11

  GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 20562/07

  DAGABAKAN ET YILDIRIM c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 59255/14

  PYLYPCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  KASPAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 32042/11

  MUSLIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 9049/06

  ÖZALP ULUSOY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

  ASADBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  Russland wegen brutaler Folter verurteilt
• EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 23361/14

  YAKOVIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  LENEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  ISAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04

  KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 64969/10

  MEHMET FIDAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05

  ALEKSANDRA DMITRIYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 52673/07

  GRIGORYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 27607/11

  A.K. c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 69234/11

  IBRAHIMOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 5269/08

  SHCHIBORSHCH AND KUZMINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04

  VLADIMIR FEDOROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 20212/13

  KHOMENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 68793/13

  MINIBAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 37665/12

  TUDOROAIE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 47837/06

  RAKHIMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 50115/06

  CEACHIR c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  BELOUSOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.07.2012 - 31939/06

  ALEKSAKHIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09

  POPANDOPULO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 2278/03

  LOPATIN AND MEDVEDSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03

  GENERALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 2059/16

  HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 5859/07

  BONDARENKO c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 18322/05

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

  BIRULEV AND SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 40851/08

  FIRAT c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  GRIGORYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 35389/04

  NITSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 41408/04

  KOLPAK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 13418/03

  DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 22485/05

  FILATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 38047/04

  SHUVALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  BORIS POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 14475/03

  BILYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 39590/05

  FERRE GISBERT c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 19206/05

  DAUTI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 25.05.2023 - 66069/16

  AHMADZAI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 20506/07

  OSANKIN AND MAZURINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 47737/10

  SHAYKHATAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.12.2015 - 24058/13

  ASLLANI v.
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 312/10

  BEKAURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 36395/06

  TEMIZALP c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  VENSKUTE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 33627/06

  GRINENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 37246/06

  MUTA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 14880/05

  KAZANTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 11778/05

  SMOLIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05

  ALCHAGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 53451/07

  POPOVITSI c. GRECE
• EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 44769/07

  SOCIETE ANONYME THALEIA KARYDI AXTE c. GRECE
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 7254/02

  ILIEVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 40885/16

  PÓSA v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 2515/11

  JAFARZADE v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 53632/16

  KOWALSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.09.2016 - 1574/06

  SAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 34331/03

  SPINOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 15058/08 (anhängig)

  KOZLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 21840/13

  KRAMARENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 10025/06

  PELESHOK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 5231/13

  HAJIBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 12311/06

  BORIS IVANOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 55061/00

  KAZAKOVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 53626/16

  BILEWICZ v. POLAND