Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUZYCHKIN v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).

  Nevertheless, under this provision 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 execution of the measure do not subject the individual to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, the detainee's health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, the provision of the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).

• LVerfG Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, 19.08.2021 - LVerfG 2/19

  Verfassungsbeschwerden gegen Landesgesetze zur Ausführung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  During his placement in remand prison IZ - 32/1 the applicant was held in cell no. 3/19, which measured 40.1 square metres and had 20 beds; cell no. 9/69, which measured 40.6 sq.

  "On 5 June 1998 [the applicant] was placed in cell 3/19 of remand prison IZ - 52/1 where he remained until 28 August 1999.

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order, where there is an "arguable claim" of a violation of a substantive Convention provision (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).

• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  The Court notes that the final decision in the applicant's criminal case was delivered by the Supreme Court of Russia at a hearing on 26 April 1999, the subsequent applications for supervisory review not being a remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, 29 January 2004).
• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 47033/99

  TUMILOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  The Court notes that the final decision in the applicant's criminal case was delivered by the Supreme Court of Russia at a hearing on 26 April 1999, the subsequent applications for supervisory review not being a remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Tumilovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47033/99, 22 June 1999, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, 29 January 2004).
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 60333/00

  SLYUSAREV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  The applicant did not explain why he had not brought a civil claim for damages against remand prison IZ - 48/3, and the materials of the case contain no indication that it had been impossible or even impractical (see, mutatis mutandis, Slyusarev v. Russia (dec.), no. 60333/00, 9 November 2006).
• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 39641/98

  LOVERIDGE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  The date of the final decision is the day on which the judgment is rendered orally in public, or, where judgment has not been publicly pronounced, the day on which the applicant or his representative are informed of it, whichever is earlier (see Loveridge v. The United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39641/98, 23 October 2001).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees and reached the conclusion that the problem was apparently of a structural nature (see, among other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

  BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

  GLADKIY v. RUSSIA

  Given the fact that the applicant lodged his application with the Court on 17 January 2003, the Court considers that he complied with the six-month requirement established by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 74, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  68337/01.
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 21056/11

  NORKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court confirmed this position in a number of follow-up cases (see Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 87-89, 12 June 2008; Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, §§ 37-39, 10 July 2008, and Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, §§ 64-67, 14 October 2008).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA

  The applicant's dissatisfaction with the outcome of the proceedings does not in itself demonstrate that a tort action was an ineffective remedy for the purposes of Article 13 (see Murray v. the United Kingdom [GC], 28 October 1994, § 100, Series A no. 300-A, and Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 74, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 45566/08

  [ENG]

  Given that the complaint in question does not concern the structural problem of inadequate treatment of Georgian prisoners suffering from serious contagious diseases at the material time (see Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 54, 22 November 2011) but rather relates to the applicant's personal situation of having contracted the relevant infection, the Court is of the opinion that a civil claim for damages under Article 207 of the General Administrative Code and Article 413 of the Civil Code was, in the circumstances, the most relevant remedy to be used (compare, for instance, with Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, §§ 74 and 75, 14 October 2008; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 78, 21 December 2010; Sizov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 58104/08, §§ 31-33, 24 July 2012; and see also Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 48-50, 4 October 2011 and Makharadze and Sikharulidze, cited above, §§ 53 and 54, where the Court acknowledged that the compensatory and preventative remedies could, in principle, co-exist and that the extent of their relevance in each particular case depended upon the exact nature of a prisoner's health-related complaints made under Article 3 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  [ENG]

  However, when applicants have complained of the detention authorities' failure to provide them with adequate medical services, but at the time of the complaint were no longer in the situation complained of, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; and Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 61744/11

  GULEVICH c. RUSSIE

  En outre, le Gouvernement se réfère aux arrêts Bouzitchkine c. Russie (no 68337/01, 14 octobre 2008), et Popov et Vorobiev c. Russie (no 1606/02, 23 avril 2009) pour dire que la Cour a rejeté des griefs similaires à celui présenté par la requérante pour non-épuisement des voies de recours internes.
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  [ENG]

  For instance, in the case of Buzychkin v. Russia the Court found that as the applicant was no longer held in the detention facility where it was alleged that no adequate medical assistance had been made available to him, a civil claim for damages was capable of providing redress in respect of his complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 58530/08

  NOGIN v. RUSSIA

  In Buzychkin v. Russia (no. 68337/01, §§ 74 and 82-85, 14 October 2008) the Court found that, since the applicant was no longer being held in the detention facility where allegedly adequate medical assistance had not been made available to him, a civil claim for damages was capable of providing redress in respect of his complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success.
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  NAUMOV v. RUSSIA

  However, when an applicant was no longer in a situation of which he complained, that is when he was no longer in detention and/or no longer experienced the detention authorities' failure to provide them with adequate medical services, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 47, 12 November 2015; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; and Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 52025/13

  MUMRYAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 14877/11

  KESHMIRI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 8720/12

  PARYGINA AND BULIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 9443/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.05.2009 - 43260/02

  DATSER v. RUSSIA