Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SVETLANA KAZMINA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Zitiert selbst (25)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  Rather, that individual is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Panchenko, cited above, § 93, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  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 of 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, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  The Court firstly 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, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  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, 24.07.2003 - 52854/99

  RIABYKH c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  With regard to the complaint of procedural defects in the hearing before the Supreme Court of Russia of 10 March 2005 by which the examination of the applicant's appeal was terminated, the Court finds that, having concluded that there has been an infringement of the applicant's right to effective judicial review of her detention, it is not necessary to consider whether the procedural guarantees of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention were available in those proceedings (see, by analogy, Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, § 59, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  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, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  Nor can continuation of detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 101, 1 March 2007; Panchenko, cited above, § 102; Khudoyorov, cited above, § 180; and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  On the latter point, what is at stake for the applicant also has to be taken into consideration (see, among many other authorities, Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, § 70, 25 October 2007; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 95, 2 March 2006; and Rokhlina, cited above, § 86).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  In the Court's view, this approach is incompatible, in itself, with the guarantees enshrined in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in so far as it permits the continued detention of a group of persons without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention or of compliance with the "reasonable time" requirement in respect of each individual member of the group (see Gubkin, cited above, § 144; Bakhmutskiy, cited above, § 141; Aleksey Makarov v. Russia, no. 3223/07, § 53, 12 June 2008; Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 45, 14 December 2006; Korchuganova, cited above, § 76; and Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  On the latter point, what is at stake for the applicant also has to be taken into consideration (see, among many other authorities, Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, § 70, 25 October 2007; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 95, 2 March 2006; and Rokhlina, cited above, § 86).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  KLYAKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

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

  BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 11/04

  VOTTO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

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

  GUBKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

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

  IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 23939/02

  SHCHERBAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 9807/02

  OVCHINNIKOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Whereas the provision of four square metres remains the desirable standard of multi-occupancy accommodation, the Court has found that where the applicants have at their disposal less than three square metres of floor surface, the overcrowding must be considered to be so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, among many other authorities, Trepashkin (no. 2), § 113, and Kozhokar, § 96, both cited above; Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, § 70, 2 December 2010; Kovaleva v. Russia, no. 7782/04, § 56, 2 December 2010; Roman Karasev, cited above, §§ 48-49; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, § 35, 23 September 2010; Vladimir Krivonosov, § 93, and Gubin, § 57, both cited above; Salakhutdinov v. Russia, no. 43589/02, § 72, 11 February 2010; Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 98, 12 February 2009; Guliyev, cited above, § 32; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).

  Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, 2 December 2010 (IZ-61/1, Rostov-on-Don, 2001-2005).

• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 14057/17

  SUKACHOV v. UKRAINE

  Given that on each hearing day the conditions of his transfer alternated with the conditions of his detention in that court, the Court will assess those conditions together (see, for a similar approach, Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§ 57-63, 26 June 2008, and Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, §§ 76-79, 2 December 2010).
• 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, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  m of floor surface, the Court found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, among many other authorities, Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, § 70, 2 December 2010; Kovaleva v. Russia, no. 7782/04, § 56, 2 December 2010; Roman Karasev, cited above, §§ 48-49; Aleksandr Leonidovich Ivanov v. Russia, no. 33929/03, § 35, 23 September 2010; Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 98, 12 February 2009; Guliyev, cited above, § 32; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA

  She has not put forward any convincing argument suggesting that the arrangements made by the national authorities for feeding detainees, including herself, amounted to a form of treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention (see, in a similar context, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, §§ 93-99, 12 June 2008; Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, §§ 106-10, 12 February 2009; and Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, §§ 76-79, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 35297/05

  [ENG]

  As a result of such overcrowding, the first and third applicants" detention did not meet the minimum requirement, as laid down in the Court's case-law (see, among many other authorities, Trepashkin v. Russia (no. 2), no. 14248/05, § 113, 16 December 2010; Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, § 96, 16 December 2010; and Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, § 70, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 50765/11

  PAPAKONSTANTINOU c. GRECE

  Αυτ&omikron;ί &omikron;ι ισχυρισµ&omikron;ί περιγράφ&omikron;υν συνθήκες κράτησης, π&omikron;υ τ&omikron;π&omikron;θετ&omikron;Ï�νται πρόδηλα κάτω από τ&omikron; επίπεδ&omikron; των &omikron;ριζ&omikron;µÎ­νων, από τα σχετικά µε τ&omikron; θέµα διεθνή κείµενα, πρ&omikron;τÏ�πων, και κυρίως κάτω από τ&omikron; επίπεδ&omikron; των απαιτήσεων τ&omikron;υ άρθρ&omikron;υ 3 της ΣÏ�µβασης (βλέπε, µεταξÏ� π&omikron;λυάριθµων άλλων πρ&omikron;ηγ&omikron;υµÎ­νων, τις: Svetlana Kazmina κατά της Ρωσσίας, υπ' αριθµό 8609/04, 2 Δεκεµβρί&omikron;υ 2010, Ταγγατίδης και λ&omikron;ιπ&omikron;ί κατά της Ελλάδ&omikron;ς, υπ' αριθµό 2889/09, 11 &Omikron;κτωβρί&omikron;υ 2011 και Κανάκης κατά της Ελλάδ&omikron;ς, (υπ' αριθµό 2), υπ' αριθµό 40146/11, 12 Δεκεµβρί&omikron;υ 2013).
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 28020/05

  [ENG]

  It appears from the cases examined by the Court that the usual timing of detainees" transferrals from remand prisons prevented them from having an ordinary breakfast on court days (see, among others, Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 108, 12 February 2009; Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, § 78, 2 December 2010; and, most recently, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 105, 22 May 2012).
• 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, 06.11.2012 - 28018/05

  [ENG]

  The Government did not contest the applicant's allegation that he had not received any breakfast at the remand prison prior to being transferred to the court-house, or dinner following his return (see Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 108, 12 February 2009; Svetlana Kazmina v. Russia, no. 8609/04, § 78, 2 December 2010; and, most recently, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 105, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 12622/04

  IVAKHNENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 41558/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 46282/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 18791/13

  NEKRASOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 25462/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 12255/11

  SKRIPKIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 08.01.2019 - 9305/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 54655/07

  [ENG]