Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.04.2004 - 63993/00
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00
• EGMR, 04.09.2019 - 63993/00

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00

  Rn. 117 The Court observes that some forms of non-pecuniary damage, including emotional distress, by their very nature cannot always be the object of concrete proof (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 44, § 96).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00

  Rn. 121 The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that that they were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00

  Under the Convention provision in question 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 secured (Valašinas, cited above, § 102; Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00

  The Court reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody under Article 5 § 1 (c) and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9, and Labita, cited above, § 147).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00

  m for two inmates - was noted as a relevant aspect for finding a violation of Article 3, albeit in that case the space factor was coupled with the established lack of ventilation and lighting (Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00

  However, where proceedings involve an assessment of personality and character of the accused and his state of mind at the time of the offence and where their outcome could be of major detriment to him, it is essential to the fairness of the proceedings that he be present at the hearing and afforded the opportunity to participate in it together with his counsel (see Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, p. 45, § 67; Pobornikoff v. Austria, no. 28501/95, § 31, 3 October 2000, and Zana v. Turkey, judgment of 25 November 1997, Reports 1997-VII, p. 2551, §§ 71-73).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00

  Rn. 93 The Court reiterates first that the danger of absconding cannot be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of the sentence risked; it must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 37, § 98).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of their cumulative effects as well as the applicant's specific allegations (Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00

  Rn. 108 The Court recalls that the State is under an obligation to secure the attendance of an accused who is in custody (see, with necessary changes made, Goddi v. Italy, judgment of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, p. 11, § 29).
• EGMR, 18.05.1999 - 28972/95

  NINN-HANSEN c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 63993/00

  The Court reiterates further that the trial court may exceptionally continue hearings where the accused is absent on account of illness, provided that his or her interests are sufficiently protected (see Ninn-Hansen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 28972/95, p. 351, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02

  NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28501/95

  POBORNIKOFF v. AUSTRIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 4792/03

  PETREA v. ROMANIA

  However, although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot exclude a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III and Romanov v. Russia, no. 63993/00, § 80, 20 October 2005).
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 19936/04

  [ENG]

  Their argument that the applicant's presence was not required purely on the grounds of his being a mentally disturbed person is striking, given that it was for the courts to determine whether he had committed the offence in a deranged state of mind and to assess whether his mental condition required compulsory medical care (see, Romanov v. Russia, no. 63993/00, § 109, 20 October 2005).
• EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 21768/02

  SELÇUK v. TURKEY

  As regards the danger posed to the public, this argument does not appear in itself a persuasive consideration in the circumstances of the present case (see Romanov v. Russia, no. 63993/00, § 94, 20 October 2005).
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  STITIC v. CROATIA

  However, although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot exclude a finding of violation of Article 3 (see Peers, cited above, § 74, and Romanov v. Russia, no. 63993/00, § 80, 20 October 2005).