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 ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 33 et seq.; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 104 et seq.; 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, 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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  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, 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, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  KLYAKHIN v. RUSSIA

  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, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 33 et seq.; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 104 et seq.; 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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  The Court observes that in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of firmly corroborating or refuting allegations under Article 3 of the Convention, and that a failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-founded nature of the applicant's allegations (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
• 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, 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, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  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, 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, 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 - 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, 13.11.2014 - 50765/11

  PAPAKONSTANTINOU c. GRÈCE

  Ces allégations décrivent des conditions de détention qui se trouvent manifestement en dessous des normes prescrites par les textes internationaux en la matière et, notamment, des exigences de l'article 3 de la Convention (voir, parmi de nombreux autres précédents, Svetlana Kazmina c. Russie, no 8609/04, 2 décembre 2010, Taggatidis et autres c. Grèce, no 2889/09, 11 octobre 2011, et Kanakis c. Grèce (no 2), no 40146/11, 12 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle que, eu égard au lien essentiel entre le paragraphe 3 et le paragraphe 1 c) de l'article 5 de la Convention, un individu condamné en première instance ne peut être considéré comme détenu « en vue d'être conduit devant l'autorité judiciaire compétente, lorsqu'il y a des raisons plausibles de soupçonner qu'il a commis une infraction'au sens de cette dernière disposition mais doit être regardé comme se trouvant dans la situation prévue à l'article 5 § 1 a de la Convention), qui autorise une privation de liberté « après condamnation par un tribunal compétent'(Svetlana Kazmina c. Russie, no 8609/04, § 84, 2 décembre 2010).
• 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).