Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KLIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (22)

• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty 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 (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  The Court reiterates in this regard that even though Article 3 does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it has always interpreted the requirement to secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov, cited above, § 95; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  The interim measure in the present case was therefore also meant to ensure that the applicant could effectively pursue his case before the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 141, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 16474/03

  NAYDYON v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  Such an obligation will arise in situations where applicants are particularly vulnerable (see Naydyon v. Ukraine, no. 16474/03, § 63, 14 October 2010; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 156, 26 July 2012; and Iulian Popescu v. Romania, no. 24999/04, § 33, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04

  VERBINT v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  Ill-treatment must, however, attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Verbint v. Romania, no. 7842/04, § 63, 3 April 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 42027/98

  TOTEVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  The Court has already, in a number of cases in which applicants have died in the course of the proceedings, examined and confirmed the locus standi of their heirs or close relatives, such as brothers or sisters, to pursue the proceedings before the Court, including in cases brought under Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Koryak v. Russia, no. 24677/10, §§ 58-68, 13 November 2012; Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, §§ 61-62, 22 July 2008; and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 45, 19 May 2004).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  Any laxity on this question would unacceptably weaken the protection of the core rights in the Convention and would not be compatible with its values and spirit (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161); it would also be inconsistent with the fundamental importance of the right of individual petition and, more generally, undermine the authority and effectiveness of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, §§ 100 and 125, and, mutatis mutandis, Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 75, Series A no. 310).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  In this case, in the absence of such an explanation the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government (see, for instance, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 274, 18 June 2002, and Buntov v. Russia, no. 27026/10, § 161, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 10301/03

  GETIREN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

  KORYAK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 73359/10

  ERGEZEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  MOCKUTE v. LITHUANIA

  Even so, the Court has already held that, in a situation like this, it remains free to itself evaluate the facts in the light of all the material at its disposal (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Alexandridis, cited above, § 34; also see Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, § 64, 4 October 2016; Idalov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 41858/08, § 99 in fine, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 69591/17

  YERUSLANOV v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, §§ 71-74, 9 December 2008, as regards delayed release from custody, and Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, §§ 41-50, 4 October 2016, as regards the State's failure to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in breach of its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 29389/19

  YEPIKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it and regard being had to its well-established case-law, the Court concludes that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention (see Klimov v. Russia, §§ 45-50, no. 54436/14, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 42874/18

  BURIYEV v. RUSSIA

  With reference to the case-law on the matter (see Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, §§ 35-37, 4 October 2016, and Barakhoyev v. Russia, no. 8516/08, §§ 22-23, 17 January 2017), and considering that the applicant died in the course of the proceedings before the Court, it can be concluded that Mrs Islamova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant's stead and, therefore, has locus standi in the proceedings.
• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 45095/19

  MIKHALEV AND SAVINOV v. RUSSIA

  32541/08 and 43441/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts), as regards placement of an applicant in a metal cage during court hearings, and Maylenskiy v. Russia, no. 12646/15, §§ 28-40, 4 October 2016, and Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, §§ 41-50, 4 October 2016, as regards the State's failure to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in breach of its obligation under Article 34 of the Convention.

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  The Court reiterates in this regard that even though Article 3 of the Convention does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it has always interpreted the requirement to secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov, cited above, § 95; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  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 moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 of the Convention (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  Any laxity on this question would unacceptably weaken the protection of the core rights in the Convention and would not be compatible with its values and spirit (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161); it would also be inconsistent with the fundamental importance of the right of individual petition and, more generally, undermine the authority and effectiveness of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, §§ 100 and 125, and, mutatis mutandis, Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 75, Series A no. 310).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 16474/03

  NAYDYON v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  Such an obligation will arise in situations where applicants are particularly vulnerable (see Naydyon v. Ukraine, no. 16474/03, § 63, 14 October 2010; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 156, 26 July 2012; and Iulian Popescu v. Romania, no. 24999/04, § 33, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  In the absence of such an explanation the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government (see, for instance, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 274, 18 June 2002, and Buntov v. Russia, no. 27026/10, § 161, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  In the absence of such an explanation the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government (see, for instance, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 274, 18 June 2002, and Buntov v. Russia, no. 27026/10, § 161, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  Having referred to the general principles laid down by the Court in a number of judgments concerning the standards of medical care of detainees (see Aleksanyan, cited above; Mirilashvili v. Russia, no. 6293/04, 11 December 2008; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, ECHR 2002-IX; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI), the Government stressed that the applicant had received comprehensive medical care in detention.
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  According to the Court's established case-law, a respondent State's failure to comply with an interim measure entails a violation of the right of individual application (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, § 125, and Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 222, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04

  VERBINT v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA