Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18, 41229/18, 44143/18, 47409/18, 47411/18, 48614/18, 57310/18 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GORYUNKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 926/08
KARELIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016) and Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, § 168, 5 January 2016).6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Domestic courts denied the applicant's motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,.
6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Domestic courts denied the applicant's motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,.
6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Domestic courts denied the applicant's motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,.
6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Domestic courts denied the applicant's motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,.
6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Domestic courts denied the applicant's motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,.
6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - Domestic courts denied the applicant's motion to ensure the participation of the prosecutor in the administrative proceedings, the prosecutor was absent (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08,.
- EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 72051/17
KORNEYEVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
- EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 50271/06
RYABININA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
- EGMR - 41229/18 (anhängig)
SHAMARDIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18
remaining complaints 11. As regards the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 about lack of any effective remedy in domestic law, submitted by the applicant in application no. 41229/18, the Court, having reached the conclusion about the lack of impartiality of the tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention (see paragraph 10 above), does not consider it necessary to examine the complaint separately.Decides to join the applications; Declares the complaints under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as indicated in the appended table, admissible and decides that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in application no. 41229/18; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention concerning the unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty); Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;.
41229/18.
- EGMR - 47409/18 (anhängig)
HILL v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18
47409/18. - EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12
Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Karelin v. Russia (no. 926/08, §§ 60-84, 20 September 2016) and Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, § 168, 5 January 2016). - EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 5865/07
BUTKEVICH v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18
7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 54381/08
TSVETKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18
54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. - EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06
FORTALNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18
7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 38898/04
ROZHKOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18
7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03
KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 1253/04
BIRYUCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 47409/18 (anhängig)
HILL v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications
Application no. 47411/18 lodged on 30 September 2018 The applicant in this case is Mr George Hill who was born on 28 May 1997 and lives in Moscow.Application no. 48614/18 lodged on 5 October 2018 The applicant in this case is Mr Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Agafonov who was born on 4 November 1986 and lives in Odintsovo, Moscow Region.
Application no. 57310/18 lodged on 5 November 2018 The applicant in this case is Mr Vladimir Mikhaylovich Matveyev who was born on 21 April 1971 and lives in Petrazavodsk, Kareliya Republic.
47409/18 and 47411/18 complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that they were unable to examine police officers responsible for their arrest and detention.
47409/18 and 47411/18, were the applicants able to examine witnesses (police officers) against them, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100-31, ECHR 2015)?.
47411/18.
48614/18.
57310/18.