Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,35346) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies victim) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violations of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 34 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses ... - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
- EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 4493/04
- EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
Wird zitiert von ... (29) Neu Zitiert selbst (28)
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
The Court reiterates that only legal costs and expenses found to have been actually and necessarily incurred and which are reasonable as to quantum are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Stasaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, §§ 102-03, 21 March 2002; see also McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, § 220). - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
We would like to refer in this respect to the well-known jurisprudence of this Court which affirms that the State cannot be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal aid purposes (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, § 65) or chosen by the accused (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 41). - EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
For now, the Court observes that there are two aspects to this "speediness" requirement: first, the opportunity for legal review must be provided soon after the person is taken into detention and, if necessary, at reasonable intervals thereafter (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 24, § 75).
- EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88
MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
Some form of legal representation of the detainee may be required, namely when he is unable to defend himself properly or in other special circumstances (see Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, § 62; Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A; and Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 70, ECHR 2005-...). - EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83
LAMY c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
This means, in particular, that the detainee should have access to the documents in the investigation file which are essential for assessing the lawfulness of his detention (see Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, § 29, and Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I). - EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88
IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
We would like to refer in this respect to the well-known jurisprudence of this Court which affirms that the State cannot be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal aid purposes (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, § 65) or chosen by the accused (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 41). - EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77
VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
Possible exceptions from this rule are conceivable: the Court observes in this connection that "in order to determine whether a proceeding provides adequate guarantees, regard must be had to the particular nature of the circumstances in which such proceeding takes place" (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 24, § 47). - EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80
BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
Some form of legal representation of the detainee may be required, namely when he is unable to defend himself properly or in other special circumstances (see Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, § 62; Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A; and Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 70, ECHR 2005-...). - EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95
REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
The Court observes that it has found delays of 23 days for one level of jurisdiction, and 43 days or 32 days for two levels of jurisdiction, to be incompatible with Article 5 § 4 (see, respectively, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-88, ECHR 2000-XII; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, §§ 91-94, 21 December 2000; and G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, §§ 34-39, 30 November 2000). - EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76
Schiesser ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
Thus, in Schiesser v. Switzerland (judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, § 31) the Court held:. - EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
WLOCH v. POLAND
- EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94
Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …
- EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96
JABLONSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 24557/94
MUSIAL c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00
ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 27426/95
G.B. v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95
NIEDBALA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63
Neumeister ./. Österreich
- EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82
SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91
KAMPANIS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 56811/00
AMROLLAHI v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96
GUISSET c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98
PAVLETIC v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11364/03
Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungshaft (rechtsfehlerhafter Haftbefehl; Recht auf …
Nur außergewöhnliche Umstände, insbesondere das erst spätere Bekanntwerden eines Grundes, der zu einer Einwendung gegen die Zulässigkeit Anlass gibt, könnten eine Regierung von der Verpflichtung entbinden, ihre Einrede in diesen Stellungnahmen vorzubringen, ehe die Kammer ihre Zulässigkeitsentscheidung erlässt (…siehe Rechtssachen N.C. ./. Italien, a. a. O., Randnr. 44;… Sejdovic, a. a. O., Randnr. 41; und Lebedev ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 4493/04, Randnrn. 39-40, 25. Oktober 2007). - EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05
TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)
In Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 98 et seq., 25 October 2007) the Court held that delays of forty and sixty-seven days constituted a breach of Article 5 § 4 as far as the appeal proceedings were concerned.In another case (Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 98 et seq., 25 October 2007) the Court held that delays of forty and sixty-seven days constituted a breach of Article 5 § 4 as far as the appeal proceedings were concerned.
- EGMR, 08.03.2018 - 22692/15
PATALAKH v. GERMANY
Ebenso hat der Gerichtshof festgestellt, dass in Verfahren vor den ordentlichen Gerichten, die sich einem gerichtlichen Haftbefehl anschließen, Verzögerungen von mehr als drei bis vier Wochen, die die Behörden zu verantworten haben, eine Frage im Zusammenhang mit dem Erfordernis der kurzen Frist nach Artikel 5 Abs. 4 der Konvention aufwerfen können (vgl. u. a. G.B../. Schweiz, a. a. O., Rdnrn. 27 und 32-39, und Lebedev./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 4493/04, Rdnrn. 97-102, 25. Oktober 2007).
- EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 32541/08
Keine Käfige für Angeklagte
Lorsqu'au cours de la procédure devant la Cour survient un nouvel élément procédural ayant une portée juridique et pouvant avoir une incidence sur la recevabilité de la requête, il est dans l'intérêt d'une bonne administration de la justice que la Partie contractante qui souhaite en exciper le fasse formellement dans les meilleurs délais (voir, mutatis mutandis, N.C. c. Italie [GC], no 24952/94, § 45, CEDH 2002-X, et Lebedev c. Russie, no 4493/04, §§ 39-40, 25 octobre 2007). - EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 39666/16
AGEYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
In the leading cases of Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 109-15, 25 October 2007), Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011) and Korneykova v. Ukraine (no. 39884/05, §§ 69-70, 19 January 2012) the Court found a violation in respect of issues, similar to those in the present case (see the appended table).Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 109-15, 25 October 2007; Korneykova.
- EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14
RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
By contrast, where the domestic formalities were easy to comply with, no issue arose under Article 34 (see Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 119, 25 October 2007). - EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 33376/07
PIRUZYAN v. ARMENIA
In that case, the Court held that it was of little relevance whether the domestic court decided on an application for release lodged by the defence or a request for detention introduced by the prosecution (see Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 72, 25 October 2007). - EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05
NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
The Court reiterates that detention without a court order or other clear legal ground, regardless of the maximum length for it that might be established by national law, is incompatible with the standard of "lawfulness", enshrined in Article 5 § 1 since during the time of unauthorised detention an individual would be kept in a legal vacuum not covered by any domestic legal provision (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 149, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 57, 25 October 2007). - EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 12008/06
ALEKSEY BORISOV c. RUSSIE
La Cour rappelle qu'en matière de « régularité'd'une détention, y compris l'observation des « voies légales ", la Convention renvoie pour l'essentiel à la législation nationale et consacre l'obligation d'en observer les normes de fond comme de procédure, mais exige de surcroît la conformité de toute privation de liberté au but de l'article 5 précité: protéger l'individu contre l'arbitraire (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Lebedev c. Russie, no 4493/04, § 53, 25 octobre 2007). - EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 54547/16
SHIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA
By contrast, where the domestic formalities were easy to comply with, no issue arose under Article 34 (see Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 119, 25 October 2007). - EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 82087/17
D.C. c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11
LATIPOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05
HADADE v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03
KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 4336/06
MANSUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 31717/15
NADTOCHIY AND POLOVYAN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04
YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08
SEFILYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 26627/05
KARIMBAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 19699/18
AKGÜN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR - 32241/18 (anhängig)
PAVLIKOVA v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
- EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12
HILAL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 5432/15
UGULAVA v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 52023/08
BOLDYREV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 47230/11
BOGOSYAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 22965/06
ZHULIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 1136/05
CEUTA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03
YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 8630/11
SUPRUNENKO v. RUSSIA
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 4493/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,40301) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
- EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 4493/04
- EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 4493/04
Furthermore, the Court ïnds that the conditions of detention at Lefortovo and "Matrosskaya Tishina", as described by the applicant, were of such a character that the applicant's detention could not be considered as being contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, in contrast, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 92-103, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 4493/04
He referred to the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, § 60) where the Court emphasised the following:. - EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63
Neumeister ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 4493/04
They referred to the case Neumeister v. Austria (judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 24), where the Court had held that "full written proceedings or an oral hearing of the parties in the examination of such remedies would be a source of delay which it is important to avoid in this field". - EKMR, 29.11.1995 - 26756/95
NOWOJSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 4493/04
Nevertheless, Article 3 does not oblige the State to release a prisoner or to transfer him to a civil hospital, even if his illness is particularly difficult to treat (see Nowojski v. Poland, no. 26756/95, Commission decision of 29 November 1995).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,60379) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 34, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 13 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
- EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 4493/04
- EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62
Stögmüller ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).But given that the applicant faced serious charges punishable with over 2 years' imprisonment, one could reasonably surmise that "the consequences and hazards of flight would seem to him to be a lesser evil than continued imprisonment" (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 1602/62, Series A no. 9, § 15).
- EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
They state the need to follow the procedure laid down therein and to observe the substantive rules of the national law (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, §§ 39, 45). - EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64
Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
The Court reiterates that a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, as a classic authority, Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, § 12; Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52).
- EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
W. c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
In this context regard must be had in particular to the character of the person involved, his morals, his assets, his links with the State in which he is being prosecuted and his international contacts (see W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, § 33 with further references). - EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90
YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
The Court reiterates that a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, as a classic authority, Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, § 12; Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52). - EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
LETELLIER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51). - EGMR, 30.09.1985 - 9300/81
CAN v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
The guarantees enshrined in Article 6 § 3 are therefore not an end in themselves, and they must accordingly be interpreted in the light of the function which they have in the overall context of the proceedings (see Can v. Austria, no. 9300/81, Commission's report of 12 July 1984, Series A no. 96, § 53). - EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64
Matznetter ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51). - EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87
CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
The Court notes, however, that the domestic courts did not advance any arguments that would have shown that the danger was "plausible" (see Clooth v. Belgium, judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 40).