Romanov v Russia 63993/00 (2005) ECHR 933: Difference between revisions
(Created page with '''(1) Violation of Article 3: The applicant's conditions of detention, in particular the severe overcrowding and its detrimental effect on the applicant's well being, combine...') |
m (Text replacement - "\[http:\/\/www\.bailii\.org\/.*\/cases\/(UKSC|ECHR|UKPC|EWCOP|EWFC|UKHL|PBRA)\/(.*)\/(.*)\.html Bailii\]" to "{{#bailii:[$2] $1 $3}}") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''(1) Violation of [[Article 3]]: The applicant's conditions of detention, in particular the severe overcrowding and its detrimental effect on the applicant's well being, combined with the length of the period during which the applicant was detained in such conditions, amounted to degrading treatment. (2) Violation of [[Article 5]](3): the length of the proceedings (and detention on remand) was attributable neither to the complexity of the case nor to the conduct of the applicant but to the lack of diligence and expedition on the part of court. (3) Violation of [[Article 6]](1) and (3)(c): In view of what was at stake for the applicant the District Court could not, if the trial was to be fair, determine his case without a direct assessment of the applicant's evidence, and the presence of the applicant's lawyer could not compensate for his absence.'' | ''(1) Violation of [[Article 3]]: The applicant's conditions of detention, in particular the severe overcrowding and its detrimental effect on the applicant's well being, combined with the length of the period during which the applicant was detained in such conditions, amounted to degrading treatment. (2) Violation of [[Article 5]](3): the length of the proceedings (and detention on remand) was attributable neither to the complexity of the case nor to the conduct of the applicant but to the lack of diligence and expedition on the part of court. (3) Violation of [[Article 6]](1) and (3)(c): In view of what was at stake for the applicant the District Court could not, if the trial was to be fair, determine his case without a direct assessment of the applicant's evidence, and the presence of the applicant's lawyer could not compensate for his absence.'' | ||
==Related judgments== | |||
[[Romanov v Russia 63993/00 (2005) ECHR 933]] | |||
*[[Romanov v Russia 63993/00 (1998) ECHR 115]] (admissibility decision) | |||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
[ | {{#bailii:[2005] ECHR 933}} | ||
[[Category:ECHR]] | [[Category:ECHR]] | ||
Latest revision as of 11:14, 25 April 2021
(1) Violation of Article 3: The applicant's conditions of detention, in particular the severe overcrowding and its detrimental effect on the applicant's well being, combined with the length of the period during which the applicant was detained in such conditions, amounted to degrading treatment. (2) Violation of Article 5(3): the length of the proceedings (and detention on remand) was attributable neither to the complexity of the case nor to the conduct of the applicant but to the lack of diligence and expedition on the part of court. (3) Violation of Article 6(1) and (3)(c): In view of what was at stake for the applicant the District Court could not, if the trial was to be fair, determine his case without a direct assessment of the applicant's evidence, and the presence of the applicant's lawyer could not compensate for his absence.
Related judgments
Romanov v Russia 63993/00 [2005] ECHR 933
- Romanov v Russia 63993/00 [1998] ECHR 115 (admissibility decision)