Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,16339
EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,16339)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.07.2014 - 8589/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,16339)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Juli 2014 - 8589/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,16339)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,16339) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    M.S. v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading ...

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08
    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 the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08
    It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08
    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 the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08
    Lastly, the Court does not consider that recourse to the federal prison service would be effective, as it would not have a sufficiently independent standpoint to satisfy the requirements of Article 13 (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A no. 61).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

    Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

    The Court notes that it has relied in previous cases on the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("the CPT"), which has considered that individual compartments measuring 0.4, 0.5 or even 0.8 square metres are unsuitable for transporting a person, no matter how short the journey (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 117-20, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and M.S. v. Russia, no. 8589/08, § 76, 10 July 2014).
  • EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 18255/10

    TOMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    These issues are also the subject of well-established case-law of the Court, which found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in a large number of similar Russian cases, starting with Khudoyorov v. Russia (no. 6847/02, §§ 112-20, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)) and Guliyev v. Russia (no. 24650/02, §§ 58-70, 19 June 2008), and also found a violation of Article 13 (see M.S. v. Russia, no. 8589/08, §§ 80-86, 10 July 2014).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2653/13

    YAROSLAV BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court will examine these complaints in the light of the general principles outlined in paragraphs 92-93 above, and set out in its case-law regarding the transport of detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 112-20, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 54-60, 31 July 2008; Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, §§ 76-79, 2 December 2010; Idalov, cited above, §§ 103-08; Yevgeniy Gusev v. Russia, no. 28020/05, §§ 56-68, 5 December 2013; and M.S. v. Russia, no. 8589/08, §§ 74-77, 10 July 2014).
  • EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

    IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

    La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention à raison des conditions de détention dans des maisons d'arrêt (voir, par exemple, Mayzit c. Russie, no 63378/00, §§ 34-43, 20 janvier 2005, Ananyev et autres c. Russie, nos 42525/07 et 60800/08, §§ 160-166, 10 janvier 2012, Kolunov c. Russie, no 26436/05, §§ 30-38, 9 octobre 2012, Zentsov et autres c. Russie, no 35297/05, §§ 38-45, 23 octobre 2012, Vyatkin c. Russie, no 18813/06, §§ 36-44, 11 avril 2013, et Dudchenko c. Russie, no 37717/05, §§ 116-123, 7 novembre 2017) ainsi qu'à raison des conditions de transport de détenus (voir, par exemple, Svetlana Kazmina c. Russie, no 8609/04, §§ 76-79, 2 décembre 2010, M.S. c. Russie, no 8589/08, §§ 71-77, 10 juillet 2014, Yaroslav Belousov c. Russie, nos 2653/13 et 60980/14, §§ 103-111, 4 octobre 2016, et Radzhab Magomedov c. Russie, no 20933/08, §§ 59-62, 20 décembre 2016).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 18791/13

    NEKRASOV c. RUSSIE

    La Cour rappelle avoir déjà conclu dans de nombreuses affaires à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention à raison des conditions de transport de détenus (voir, par exemple, Svetlana Kazmina c. Russie, no 8609/04, §§ 76-79, 2 décembre 2010, M.S. c. Russie, no 8589/08, §§ 71-77, 10 juillet 2014, Yaroslav Belousov c. Russie, nos 2653/13 et 60980/14, §§ 103-111, 4 octobre 2016, et Radzhab Magomedov c. Russie, no 20933/08, §§ 59-62, 20 décembre 2016).
  • EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 47537/11

    SKOROBOGATOVA c. RUSSIE

    La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires, dont celles dirigées contre la Russie, sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention quant aux conditions de détention et de transport de détenus (voir, par exemple, Dudchenko c. Russie, no 37717/05, §§ 116-123, 7 novembre 2017, Yaroslav Belousov c. Russie, nos 2653/13 et 60980/14, §§ 103-111, 4 octobre 2016, M.S. c. Russie, no 8589/08, §§ 71-77, 10 juillet 2014, Vyatkin c. Russie, no 18813/06, §§ 36-44, 11 avril 2013, et Ananyev et autres c. Russie, nos 42525/07 et 60800/08, §§ 160-166, 10 janvier 2012), de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention quant à la durée de la détention provisoire de détenus (G. c. Russie, no 42526/07, §§ 114-119, 21 juin 2016, Korkin c. Russie, no 48416/09, §§ 88-96, 12 novembre 2015, Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, §§ 108-111, 27 novembre 2012, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 121-133, 11 octobre 2011, et Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, §§ 88-98, 30 juillet 2009) ainsi que de l'article 8 de la Convention quant au droit de détenus de bénéficier de visites familiales en prison (Andrey Smirnov c. Russie, no 43149/10, §§ 39-43, 13 février 2018, Moïsseïev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 248-251, 9 octobre 2008, et Vlassov c. Russie, no 78146/01, §§ 123-127, 12 juin 2008).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 22935/10

    ZVYAGIN v. RUSSIA

    The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the conditions of transport (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 112-20, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 47-70, 19 June 2008; Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, §§ 53-60, 31 July 2008; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 103-108, 22 May 2012; and M.S. v. Russia, no. 8589/08, §§ 78-79, 10 July 2014) and the confinement of defendants in metal cages in courtrooms (see Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, §§ 122-39, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Urazov v. Russia, no. 42147/05, §§ 81-92, 14 June 2016).
  • EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 67024/09

    SVIRIDOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

    The Court further recalls its position that, given the present state of Russian law, none of the remedies referred to by the Government, can be considered an effective remedy vis-à-vis inadequate conditions of transport (see M.S. v. Russia, no. 8589/08, §§ 80-86, 10 July 2014, and Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, §§ 54-56, 19 June 2008).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht