Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YAROSLAV BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13

  The Court reiterates that Article 11 of the Convention only protects the right to "peaceful assembly", a notion which does not cover a demonstration where the organisers and participants have violent intentions (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 4916/07

  Alexejew ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13

  The guarantees of Article 11 of the Convention therefore apply to all gatherings except those where the organisers and participants have such intentions, incite violence or otherwise reject the foundations of a democratic society (see Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 45, 23 October 2008; Alekseyev v. Russia, nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, § 80, 21 October 2010; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 37, 24 July 2012; Gün and Others v. Turkey, no. 8029/07, § 49, 18 June 2013; Taranenko, cited above, § 66; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 92, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95

  STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13

  The Court reiterates that Article 11 of the Convention only protects the right to "peaceful assembly", a notion which does not cover a demonstration where the organisers and participants have violent intentions (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 77, ECHR 2001-IX).

 
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 10877/04

  SERGEY KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13

  The guarantees of Article 11 of the Convention therefore apply to all gatherings except those where the organisers and participants have such intentions, incite violence or otherwise reject the foundations of a democratic society (see Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 45, 23 October 2008; Alekseyev v. Russia, nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, § 80, 21 October 2010; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 37, 24 July 2012; Gün and Others v. Turkey, no. 8029/07, § 49, 18 June 2013; Taranenko, cited above, § 66; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 92, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 17391/06

  PRIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13

  In other cases it found that the authorities" response to violence had been proportionate and complied with Article 11 of the Convention (see Osmani and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X; Protopapa v. Turkey, no. 16084/90, §§ 104-12, 24 February 2009; and Primov and Others v. Russia, no. 17391/06, §§ 156-63, 12 June 2014).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 8029/07

  GÜN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13

  The guarantees of Article 11 of the Convention therefore apply to all gatherings except those where the organisers and participants have such intentions, incite violence or otherwise reject the foundations of a democratic society (see Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 45, 23 October 2008; Alekseyev v. Russia, nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, § 80, 21 October 2010; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 37, 24 July 2012; Gün and Others v. Turkey, no. 8029/07, § 49, 18 June 2013; Taranenko, cited above, § 66; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 92, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 17526/10

  GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13

  In one of these cases it found a violation of Article 11 of the Convention on account of a disproportionate sentence imposed on the applicant for attending a demonstration and throwing stones at the security forces (see Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, §§ 91-97, 19 January 2016).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

  FÁBER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13

  The guarantees of Article 11 of the Convention therefore apply to all gatherings except those where the organisers and participants have such intentions, incite violence or otherwise reject the foundations of a democratic society (see Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 45, 23 October 2008; Alekseyev v. Russia, nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, § 80, 21 October 2010; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 37, 24 July 2012; Gün and Others v. Turkey, no. 8029/07, § 49, 18 June 2013; Taranenko, cited above, § 66; and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 92, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

  DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13

  The Court would find it difficult to reconcile the degrading treatment of the defendant during the judicial proceedings with the notion of a fair hearing, regard being had to the importance of equality of arms, the presumption of innocence, and the confidence which the courts in a democratic society must inspire in the public, above all in the accused (see, mutatis mutandis, De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 26, Series A no. 86, and Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above, § 131).
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 28020/05

  YEVGENIY GUSEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13

  The Court will examine these complaints in the light of the general principles outlined in paragraphs 92-93 above, and set out in its case-law regarding the transport of detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 112-20, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 54-60, 31 July 2008; Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, §§ 76-79, 2 December 2010; Idalov, cited above, §§ 103-08; Yevgeniy Gusev v. Russia, no. 28020/05, §§ 56-68, 5 December 2013; and M.S. v. Russia, no. 8589/08, §§ 74-77, 10 July 2014).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08

  M.S. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  SVETLANA KAZMINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 27473/02

  ERDOGAN YAGIZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

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

• EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 33610/18

  TRETYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

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

  2653/13 and 60980/14, § 125, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 12166/19

  ZHDANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court has also dealt with the issue of the use of glass cabins in courtrooms and found that under certain circumstances such a practice could also disclose a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, and Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 144-50, 17 July 2018, where similar conclusion was reached by the Court against the background of the glass dock having been constantly surrounded by armed police officers and court ushers and a guard dog having been present next to it in the courtroom).

 
• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 48694/10

  ÇIÇEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE

  Elle a conclu que les manifestations en question relevaient du champ d'application de l'article 11 de la Convention au motif que les organisateurs de ces rassemblements n'avaient pas exprimé d'intentions violentes et qu'il n'y avait aucune raison de croire que les rassemblements n'étaient pas censés être pacifiques (Nurettin Aldemir et autres c. Turquie, nos 32124/02, 32126/02, 32129/02, 32132/02, 32133/02, 32137/02 et 32138/02, § 45, 18 décembre 2007, Protopapa c. Turquie, no 16084/90, §§ 76 et 104, 24 février 2009, Uzunget et autres c. Turquie, no 21831/03, § 52, 13 octobre 2009, Asproftas c. Turquie, no 16079/90, § 106, 27 mai 2010, Gün et autres c. Turquie, no 8029/07, § 50, 18 juin 2013, Gülcü précité, §§ 91-97, Yaroslav Belousov c. Russie, nos 2653/13 et 60980/14, §§ 169-172, 4 octobre 2016).

  Dans un certain nombre d'affaires où était en cause un rassemblement sur la place Bolotnaïa de Moscou, la Cour a constaté que celui-ci tombait sous l'empire de l'article 11 de la Convention et elle a admis que les requérants pouvaient prétendre à la protection de cette disposition au motif qu'ils ne figuraient pas parmi les responsables des premières agressions ayant contribué à la détérioration du caractère pacifique du rassemblement (voir, entre autres, Yaroslav Belousov c. Russie, nos 2653/13 et 60980/14, § 172, 4 octobre 2016, Stepan Zimin c. Russie, nos 63686/13 et 60894/14, § 72, 30 janvier 2018, et Lutskevich c. Russie, nos 6312/13 et 60902/14, § 94, 15 mai 2018).

• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 36904/19

  BUTYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  2653/13 and 60980/14, § 126, 4 October 2016, concerning placement of applicants in a metal cage or in a glass cabin in courtrooms; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 51-56, 13 February 2018, and Resin v. Russia, no. 9348/14, §§ 39-41, 18 December 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in prison; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 58772/18

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 145-154, 4 October 2016; and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.

  The applicant was held in a glass cabin with six co-defendants during the hearings between May 2019 and 20/10/2020 (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, § 127, 4 October 2016).

• EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 35012/19

  LUKASHCHUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 123-28, 4 October 2016, where extreme overcrowding inside the glass cabin led the Court to the conclusion of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-57, 13 February 2018, as regards restrictions on family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 69-83, 28 May 2019, as regards discriminatory treatment concerning family visits in pre-trial detention facilities; Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 1510/21

  ASADULLAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  2653/13 and 60980/14, § 126, 4 October 2016, concerning placement of applicants in a metal cage and other security arrangements in courtrooms; Sergey Babushkin v. Russia, no. 5993/08, 28 November 2013, concerning conditions of post-conviction detention and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Tomov and Others, cited above, §§ 92-156, regarding the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint about conditions of detention during transport; Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 62807/09

  MASLOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 145-54, 4 October 2016, Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 16694/13

  ASAINOV AND SIBIRYAK v. RUSSIA

  The background facts relating to the planning, conduct and dispersal of the demonstration at Bolotnaya Square are set out in more detail in Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, §§ 7-65, 5 January 2016) and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia (nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 7-33, 4 October 2016).

  The Court has previously held that the assembly at Bolotnaya Square on 6 May 2012 fell within the scope of Article 11 of the Convention (see Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos. 2653/13 and 60980/14, §§ 168-71, 4 October 2016).

• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 41071/18

  TINGAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 13567/13

  BURKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 10881/21

  SOLDATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 3219/19

  FILIMONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.11.2023 - 56247/15

  KASHUBA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09

  TKACHUK c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 19753/18

  ZUBAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 76061/14

  VAROGLU ATIK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 41248/17

  BORISOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 67312/12

  FIRSTOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 18791/13

  NEKRASOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 47537/11

  SKOROBOGATOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 54172/20

  KOKUNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 50474/20 (anhängig)

  KRYUK v. UKRAINE and 1 other application
• EGMR - 46839/17 (anhängig)

  ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE and 4 other applications