Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63702) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KOSITSYN v. RUSSIA
Art. 3 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 69535/01
- EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00
MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01
This same prison appeared in the case of Mayzit v. Russia, where the Court found a violation of Article 3 on account of the detention conditions, and, in particular, overcrowding (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 34-43, 20 January 2005.).The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01
Irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006). - EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01
NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00
LABZOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 4871/03
SKOROBOGATYKH v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01
Overcrowding in remand prison IZ-39/1 was also at the heart of another, more recent case - Skorobogatykh v. Russia (no. 4871/03, §§ 8 and 9, 22 December 2009, not yet final).
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
More specifically, the Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 3 on account of the detention of applicants in overcrowded conditions in detention facility no. IZ-39/1 at the time when the applicant in the present case was detained there (see Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 123-133, 27 May 2010; Kositsyn v. Russia, no. 69535/01, §§ 21-31, 12 May 2010; and Shilbergs v. Russia, §§ 89-99, no. 20075/03, 17 December 2009). - EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 16284/18
PARFENOV AND BARABASH v. RUSSIA
The Court observes that it applies a similar approach to cases concerning Article 5 § 3 of the Convention by calculating the six-month time-limit for applicants to complain about the unreasonably long detention on remand from the date of the trial judgment, irrespective of the fact if an appeal may be pending (see Novinskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 11982/02, § 107, 6 December 2007; Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02.25 January 2007; Kositsyn v. Russia (dec.), no. 69535/01, 19 October 2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, 5 October 2006; Daktaras v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 42095/98, 11 January 2000).
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 69535/01 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,60618) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KOSITSYN v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 69535/01
- EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 69535/01
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 69535/01
Nevertheless, the Court also reiterates that in 1999-2000 conditions in Russian remand prisons were unsatisfactory, and that there was no effective remedy against this general problem (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)). - EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64
Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 69535/01
Thereafter for the purposes of the Convention he was a person convicted by a competent court, pursuant to Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention and, consequently, ceased to have been detained pending investigation and trial under Article 5 § 1 (c) (see, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, 11 January 2000, ECHR 2000-X; see also, as a classic authority, the Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. - EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98
DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 69535/01
Thereafter for the purposes of the Convention he was a person convicted by a competent court, pursuant to Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention and, consequently, ceased to have been detained pending investigation and trial under Article 5 § 1 (c) (see, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, 11 January 2000, ECHR 2000-X; see also, as a classic authority, the Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. - EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
DIKME c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 69535/01
Fifthly, as regards the applicant's contention that he was not represented by the lawyer of his choice, the Court recalls that in order to determine whether the aim of Article 6 - a fair trial - has been achieved, regard must be had to the entirety of the proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 109, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 6924/02
JAKUMAS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 69535/01
Throughout the proceedings the applicant was afforded ample opportunities, personally and through his defence counsel, to present his case and contest the evidence against him before the courts at two levels of jurisdiction (see Jakumas v. Lithuania, no. 6924/02, §§ 54-55, 18 July 2006).
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.