CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 2021
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-211984
- Date
- 3 septembre 2021
- Publication
- 3 septembre 2021
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FB21495 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s8424CBB9 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; float:right } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s5FC80776 { height:54.8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 20 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 53715/19 Aleksey Viktorovich BOGDANOV against Russia and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 3 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The cases concern routine application of handcuffs to life prisoners in breach of domestic legal provisions every time they left their cells (see Kashavelov v. Bulgaria , no. 891/05, §§ 39 and 40, 20 January 2011, Kaverzin v. Ukraine , no. 23893/03, §§ 151-63, 15 May 2012, N.T. v.   Russia , no. 14727/11, §§ 53-56, 2 June 2020, and Shlykov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, §§ 77-93, 19 January 2021) and lack of an effective remedy in this respect (application no. 11687/21). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Do the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies to review their complaints concerning their routine handcuffing, under Article   3 of the Convention?   In particular, can the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure (the CAP), as seen in the light of the judicial practice and clarifications issued by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, provide an effective preventive and/or compensatory remedy that would satisfy the requirements as outlined in the Court’s practice (see, notably, Shmelev and Others v.   Russia (dec.), no.   41743/17, §§ 87 and 89 , 17 March 2020; Shlykov and Others v.   Russia , nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, §§ 49-56, 19 January 2021; and Akhmednabiyev v Russia (dec.), no. 39410/11, §§ 27-29, 23 March 2021)?   2.     Did the systematic application of handcuffs to applicants in all cases constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see N.T. v. Russia , no. 14727/11, §§ 53-56, 2 June 2020 and Shlykov and Others v. Russia , nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, §§ 77-93, 19   January 2021)? The Government are invited to indicate periods when the applicants were subjected to the above measures and to provide supporting documents relating to the application of these measures. QUESTION SPECIFIC TO THE APPLICATION No. 11687/21 3.     As regards the application no. 11687/21, did the applicant have effective domestic remedies in respect of the above complaint about handcuffing, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention? APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on   Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Detention facility Period of alleged handcuffing 1. 53715/19   20/11/2019 Aleksey Viktorovich BOGDANOV   1974   Elban Russian IK-6 of the Orenburg Region   13/03/2001 - 31/05/2019 2. 58980/19   31/10/2019 Yevgeniy Petrovich GRITSUK   1966   Elban Russian     IK-6 of the Orenburg Region   14/03/2001 - 08/05/2019 3. 11687/21   01/01/2021 Arasul Pavlovich KHUBIYEV   1977   Solikamsk Russian IK-2 of the Perm Region   14/02/2012 - pending 4. 11689/21   30/12/2020 Nikolay Nikolayevich MIKHAYLOV 1989 Solikamsk Russian IK-2 of the Perm Region   12/05/2012 - pending    Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 3 septembre 2021
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-211984
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel