Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOROKIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Sorokin v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 67482/10

  The complaint about the conditions of detention must be filed within six months from the end of the situation complained about or, if there was an effective domestic remedy to be exhausted, of the final decision in the process of exhaustion (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 78, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 26716/09

  FAKHRETDINOV and OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 67482/10

  26716/09, 67576/09 and 7698/10, § 27, 23 September 2010).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 67482/10

  The Government referred to the judgment in the case of Mitrokhin v. Russia (no. 35648/04, 24 January 2012).

• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 6270/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 67482/10

  The Court reiterates that in two applications brought by the applicant's co-defendants, it has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of an acute lack of personal space in the cells of prison IZ-34/1 during the same period of time (see Ananyin v. Russia, no. 13659/06, §§ 65-70, 30 July 2009, and Lyubimenko v. Russia, no. 6270/06, §§ 54-59, 19 March 2009).
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 13659/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 67482/10

  The Court reiterates that in two applications brought by the applicant's co-defendants, it has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of an acute lack of personal space in the cells of prison IZ-34/1 during the same period of time (see Ananyin v. Russia, no. 13659/06, §§ 65-70, 30 July 2009, and Lyubimenko v. Russia, no. 6270/06, §§ 54-59, 19 March 2009).
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 13776/11

  YARTSEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 67482/10

  Their departure to the colony being definitive at the material time and their subsequent return to the same prison being a mere happenstance, the Court reached the conclusion that their transfer marked the end of the situation complained about and that the six-month period should run from the day they left the prison (see Mitrokhin, cited above, § 36, and Yartsev v. Russia (dec.), no. 13776/11, § 30, 26 March 2013).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09

  GORBULYA v. RUSSIA

  The Court accordingly finds that the applicant's short period of absence from facility IZ-47/1 had no effect on the continuous nature of his detention (see, for similar reasoning, Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, §§ 24-27, 10 October 2013).
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  KALININ v. RUSSIA

  Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers, in such circumstances, that the Government's declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, § 21, 10 October 2013).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10

  DERGALEV v. RUSSIA

  Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers that in such circumstances the Government's declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, § 21, 10 October 2013, and Kalinin v. Russia, no. 54749/12, § 23, 19 February 2015).

• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 7977/09

  [ENG]

  The Court further notes that it has previously found inadmissible the applications in which the applicants had attempted to use the Compensation Act, but failed to comply with certain formal requirements on lodging a claim for compensation (see, for example, Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, §§ 34-37, 10 October 2013).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10

  SHEPEL v. RUSSIA

  Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers, in such circumstances, that the Government's declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, § 21, 10 October 2013, and Kalınin v. Russia, no. 54749/12, § 23, 19 February 2015).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 4963/06

  KURUSHIN v. RUSSIA

  Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers that the declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, 10 October 2013).
• EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 25604/06

  TOMAYLY v. RUSSIA

  Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers that the declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, 10 October 2013).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 42080/11

  ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA

  Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers, in the particular circumstances of the applicant's case, that the Government's declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, § 21, 10 October 2013).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 33825/10

  ZHULIN v. RUSSIA

  It is especially true when an individual is remanded in custody pending trial and is taken out of a facility for interviews and other procedural acts or for medical treatment only to be returned there after a short period of time (see Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, § 27, 10 October 2013).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 18506/09

  VERSHININ v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously found that short periods of an applicant's absence from a specific facility during his pre-trial detention, when he is temporarily taken out out of that facility for interviews and other procedural acts or medical treatment, and then returned back, have no incidence on the continuous nature of that detention (see Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, § 27, 10 October 2013).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 26073/09

  KARBYSHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 66414/11

  BERGER v. RUSSIA