Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZUBKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Struck out of the list (Art. 37) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  Since its first judgment concerning the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention in Russian penal facilities (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI), the Court has found similar violations in many cases against Russia which concerned the conditions of detention in remand prisons (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 39249/03

  G.O. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  The complaint relating to the absence from a remand hearing is also based on well-established case-law of the Court (see G.O. v. Russia, no. 39249/03, §§ 93-97, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  While it is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment in all these respects, the final evaluation of whether the interference is necessary remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008).

 
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 35623/05

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens (Datenschutz; GPS-Überwachung; Observation; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  Private-life considerations may arise once any systematic or permanent record comes into existence, even if an audio or video recording is made while the person is in a public place (see Uzun v. Germany, no. 35623/05, § 44, ECHR 2010 (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  It has, however, left open the question whether those remedies would be available and effective in cases where an individual learned about the interception of his or her communications in the course of criminal proceedings against him or her (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, §§ 294-98, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98

  P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  On a closer examination, however, the Court has found that the courts in criminal proceedings were not capable of providing an effective remedy in the following situations: although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicants" right to respect for their private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017).
• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  On a closer examination, however, the Court has found that the courts in criminal proceedings were not capable of providing an effective remedy in the following situations: although they could consider questions of the fairness of admitting the evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was not open to them to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicants" right to respect for their private life and correspondence was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society"; still less was it open to them to grant appropriate relief in connection with the complaint (see Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX; Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011; and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-07, 7 February 2017).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  While it is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment in all these respects, the final evaluation of whether the interference is necessary remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68955/11

  DRAGOJEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  The Court has occasionally accepted that that remedy was apparently effective and sufficient and therefore the applicants who had pursued it complied with the exhaustion requirement (see Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016, where the applicants had challenged the admissibility of the evidence obtained as a result of the allegedly unlawful covert surveillance measures in the criminal proceedings against them).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  It cannot therefore be regarded as unreasonable for an applicant to wait until he or she has received documents establishing the facts essential for an application to the Court before introducing such an application (see, mutatis mutandis, Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 35285/08

  IRFAN GÜZEL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07

  MAAYEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 41152/06

  AVANESYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 20933/08

  RADZHAB MAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 56984/10

  MARGIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It further reiterates that it is the obligation of the domestic courts to carry out an effective judicial review of the lawfulness and "necessity in a democratic society" of the contested surveillance measures and to furnish sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, §§ 131, 7 November 2017).

  29431/05 and 2 others,.

• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39757/15

  SIGURÐUR EINARSSON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND

  However, the Court observes that while the Supreme Court could undoubtedly have declared the telephone tapping in question to be unlawful and/or unjustified, it is less clear whether it was open to the Supreme Court, in the context of criminal proceedings, to deal with the substance of the Convention complaint that the interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was not "in accordance with the law" or not "necessary in a democratic society" and to grant appropriate relief in that respect (see Akhlyustin v. Russia, no. 21200/05, § 24, 7 November 2017, and Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05, 7070/06 and 5402/07, § 88, 7 November 2017, and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, § 22, 7 November 2017; see also, in connection with the existence of an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-V, P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 86, ECHR 2001-IX, Goranova-Karaeneva v. Bulgaria, no. 12739/05, § 59, 8 March 2011 (where the question of exhaustion was joined to the merits of the Article 13 complaint), and Irfan Güzel v. Turkey, no. 35285/08, §§ 106-107, 7 February 2017; and, by contrast, Dragojevic v. Croatia, no. 68955/11, §§ 35, 42, 47 and 72, 15 January 2015; Santare and Labaz?†ikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, §§ 25 and 40-46, 31 March 2016; and Radzhab Magomedov v. Russia, no. 20933/08, §§ 20 and 77-79, 20 December 2016).
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 61147/13

  TREVOGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It further reiterates that it is the obligation of the domestic courts to carry out an effective judicial review of the lawfulness and "necessity in a democratic society" of the contested surveillance measures and to furnish sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, §§ 131, 7 November 2017).

 
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 49969/14

  PINTAR AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Where, therefore, an applicant avails himself of an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, the Court considers that it may be appropriate, for the purposes of Article 35 § 1, to take the start of the six-month period from the date when the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, § 101, 7 November 2017, and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 157, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 45431/14

  TIMOFEYEV ET POSTUPKIN c. RUSSIE

  La Cour estime toutefois qu'il ne peut être reproché au second requérant d'avoir fait usage d'un recours à une époque où elle ne s'était pas encore prononcée sur la compatibilité de celui-ci avec l'article 35 de la Convention, dont elle a elle-même reconnu l'effectivité par la suite (voir, pour une approche similaire, Zubkov et autres c. Russie, nos 29431/05 et 2 autres, §§ 106-107, 7 novembre 2017).
• EGMR - 20202/15 (anhängig)

  IVANOV v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications

  29431/05 and 2 others, 7 November 2017, Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, 7 November 2017, Moskalev v. Russia, no. 44045/05, 7 November 2017 and Konstantin Moskalev v. Russia, no. 59589/10, 7 November 2017).
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 71333/10

  LAVRENTYEV v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it discloses a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Bykov v. Russia ([GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 72-80, 10 March 2009); Akhlyustin v. Russia (no. 21200/05, §§ 24-29 and §§ 36-46, 7 November 2017); and Zubkov and Others v. Russia (nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, §§ 120-33, 17 November 2017).
• EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 56813/10

  SEMYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court has also emphasised that the applicants cannot be reproached for their attempt to bring their grievances to the attention of the domestic courts through the remedies which they mistakenly considered effective in the absence of evidence that they were aware or should have become aware of the futility of their course of action (compare, Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, § 107, 7 November 2017).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 31578/10

  VISLOBOKOV AND GORDON v. RUSSIA

  It further reiterates that it is incumbent on the domestic courts to carry out an effective judicial review of the lawfulness and "necessity in a democratic society" of the contested surveillance measures and to furnish sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, § 131, 7 November 2017).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 78144/13

  YUDINTSEV AND SHISTEROV v. RUSSIA

  It further reiterates that it is incumbent on the domestic courts to carry out an effective judicial review of the lawfulness and "necessity in a democratic society" of the contested surveillance measures and to furnish sufficient safeguards against arbitrariness within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Zubkov and Others v. Russia, nos. 29431/05 and 2 others, § 131, 7 November 2017).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 9456/13

  BELEVITIN AND AGARKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 41103/10

  DOVGIY AND SAGURA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 2331/14

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 5123/09

  GUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 20291/17 (anhängig)

  VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA and 25 other applications
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 62082/10

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 32711/13

  ANDREYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.05.2022 - 70913/12

  POROSHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 2064/10

  FEDOTOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 15783/10

  UTIMISHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 60757/12

  ANZINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA