Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VLADIMIR KRIVONOSOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 13, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 5-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (34)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  "[T]he Government did not demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court or other State agencies, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern the applicant's personal situation (cf. Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; and, most recently, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006).

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 33 et seq.; 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; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of an effective remedy for inhuman and degrading conditions of detention, finding as follows (see Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007, and Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 87, 12 June 2008):.

  The Court has previously found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in many Russian cases on account of applicants' confinement in cramped conditions in detention units of courthouses and lack of proper nutrition on the days of the hearings (see, among many other authorities, Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53-60, 31 July 2008; Salmanov v. Russia, no. 3522/04, §§ 60-65, 31 July 2008; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 92-99, 12 June 2008; and, more recently, Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, §§ 106-10, 12 February 2009).

• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  The "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  The Court first reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  Until his conviction, the accused must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continued detention ceases to be reasonable (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 30, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  Neither did he allege that any such statements had later served as the basis for his conviction, or otherwise explain how the lack of legal assistance for the first several days after his arrest had compromised the overall fairness of the proceedings (see, by contrast, Salduz, cited above, §§ 56-62, and Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, §§ 72-92, 24 September 2009).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention does not guarantee a free-standing right to legal assistance at the preliminary stage of a police investigation, yet this provision, read in the context of the general guarantees of Article 6 § 1, may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 33 et seq.; 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; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02

  GUBKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  MOSKOVETS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 4459/03

  SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02

  STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  KLYAKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 37810/03

  BAGEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

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

  BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03

  OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 72277/01

  DVOYNYKH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court has held in particular that the Government had not demonstrated what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or another State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant's personal situation alone (see, among recent authorities, Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 92-93, 16 December 2010; Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, §§ 43-44, 7 October 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, §§ 82-84, 15 July 2010; Lutokhin, cited above, § 45; Skorobogatykh v. Russia, no. 4871/03, § 52, 22 December 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 87-89, 12 March 2009; Benediktov, cited above, §§ 27-30; and also Moiseyev (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  7772/04.
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA

  In any event, it does not appear that she was detained at the courthouse in cramped conditions on many occasions and/or for prolonged periods of time (see, for comparison, Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, §§ 80 and 81, 1 April 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, §§ 101 and 102, 15 July 2010; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 117-120, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).

• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  [ENG]

  Thus, by operation of the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court does not have jurisdiction to delve into the lawfulness of the applicant's arrest and the initial period of detention under the detention order of 4 February 2010 (from 4 February to 25 March 2010) (see, in so far as relevant, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, § 83, 24 May 2007; Savenkova v. Russia, no. 30930/02, § 62, 4 March 2010; and Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, § 109, 15 July 2010).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  [ENG]

  Thus, as regards formal lawfulness, the Court is only competent to examine the periods of detention ordered by the district court on 6 May, 7 July, 8 September and 11 November 2010 (see, in a similar context, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, § 83, 24 May 2007; Savenkova v. Russia, no. 30930/02, § 62, 4 March 2010; and Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, § 109, 15 July 2010).
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09

  [ENG]

  The "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test of whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see, most recently, Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, § 147, 15 July 2010).
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  SIDIKOVY v. RUSSIA

  Given that the latest decision authorising the first applicant's detention had been taken on 3 June 2011 and upheld on appeal on 6 July 2011, which is more than six months before the complaint was brought before the Court, the Court is not competent to examine the complaint regarding the formal legality of the first applicant's detention pending extradition (see, in a similar context, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, § 83, 24 May 2007; Savenkova v. Russia, no. 30930/02, § 62, 4 March 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, § 109, 15 July 2010; and Shakurov, cited above, § 152).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04

  [ENG]

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see, among many other references, Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, § 133, 15 July 2010; Gubkin, cited above, § 142; and Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 101, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 64809/10

  [ENG]

  Thus, by operation of the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court does not have jurisdiction to delve into the lawfulness of the applicant's arrest and the initial period of detention under the detention order of 26 February 2010 (from 26 February to 1 April 2010) (see, in a similar context, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, § 83, 24 May 2007; Savenkova v. Russia, no. 30930/02, § 62, 4 March 2010; and Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, § 109, 15 July 2010).
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 41558/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has held in particular that the Government had not demonstrated what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court, or another State agency, bearing in mind that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not concern the applicant's personal situation alone (see, among many authorities, Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, §§ 92-93, 16 December 2010; Skachkov v. Russia, no. 25432/05, §§ 43-44, 7 October 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, §§ 82-84, 15 July 2010; Lutokhin v. Russia, no. 12008/03, § 45, 8 April 2010; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 84-89, 12 March 2009, and Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 27-30, 10 May 2007).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  KOVALEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 20326/04

  [ENG]