Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHACHATRYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Khachatryan and Others v. Armenia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 23978/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06

  In reviewing whether the rule has been observed, it is essential to have regard to the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the State concerned, the general legal and political context in which they operate, as well as the particular circumstances of the case and whether the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected in order to exhaust available domestic remedies (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 86, ECHR 2000-VII, and Melnik, cited above, § 67).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06

  Furthermore, the judicial officer must offer the requisite guarantees of independence from the executive and the parties (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 35, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

  CIULLA v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 1 of the Convention contains an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for deprivation of liberty which must be interpreted strictly and no deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (see, among other authorities, Ciulla v. Italy, 22 February 1989, § 41, Series A no. 148, and Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 43, ECHR 2008).

 
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the scope for flexibility in interpreting and applying the notion of "promptness" is very limited (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, § 62, Series A no. 145-B).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06

  A person may be detained under Article 5 § 1 (c) only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on suspicion of his having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94

  ASSENOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06

  In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06

  A person may be detained under Article 5 § 1 (c) only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on suspicion of his having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06

  Furthermore, under Article 35 the existence of remedies which are available and sufficient must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, among other authorities, De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77, and Vernillo v. France, 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198).