Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 54071/00
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

  It ends with the day on which a charge is finally determined or the proceedings are discontinued (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 124, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

  In particular, applicants cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in their defence (YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).

• BFH, 07.11.2013 - X K 13/12

  Unangemessene Dauer eines finanzgerichtlichen Klageverfahrens

  Ganz überwiegend sind diese Entscheidungen von vornherein nicht zu Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK ergangen, der den Anspruch auf Entscheidung "innerhalb angemessener Frist" enthält, sondern zu Freiheitsentziehungen i.S. des Art. 5 EMRK, der in Abs. 4 einen Anspruch auf gerichtliche Entscheidung "innerhalb kurzer Frist" vorsieht (zu Strafverfahren in der Russischen Förderation vgl. Entscheidungen des EGMR vom 7. April 2005  54071/00 --Rokhlina--; vom 8. November 2005  6847/02 --Khudoyorov--; vom 24. Mai 2007  27193/02 --Ignatov--, Rz 111; vom 9. Oktober 2008  62936/00 --Moiseyev--, Rz 160, und vom 26. November 2009  13591/05 --Nazarov--, Rz 126; zur zwangsweisen Unterbringung eines als "Psychopathen" eingestuften Straftäters in einer britischen Klinik vgl. EGMR-Urteil vom 20. Februar 2003  50272/99 --Hutchison Reid--, Rz 79).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Starting with the Kalashnikov judgment in 2002, the Court has to date found a violation of the obligation to guarantee a trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, in more than eighty cases against Russia where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and employing the same stereotyped formulae, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other authorities, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Mamedova, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  ; Dolgova c. Russie, no 11886/05, §§ 38 et suiv., 2 mars 2006 ; Rokhlina c. Russie, no 54071/00, §§ 63 et suiv., 7 avril 2005 ; Panchenko, précité, §§ 91 et suiv.

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Nor can it be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 66, 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; and Letellier, cited above).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  On the other hand, in Rokhlina v. Russia (no. 54071/00, § 79, 7 April 2005), where the global duration of the proceedings was 41 days for two levels of jurisdiction, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  MIMINOSHVILI v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, cited above, §§ 99 et seq., Khudobin, cited above, §§ 103 et seq.; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 172 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in several Russian cases where the domestic courts prolonged an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formula paraphrasing the reasons for detention provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explaining how they applied in the applicant's case or considering alternative preventive measures (see the Belevitskiy, Mamedova and Khudoyorov cases cited above, and also Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  PIOTR BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  On the other hand, in Rokhlina v. Russia (no. 54071/00, § 79, 7 April 2005), where the global duration of the proceedings was 41 days for two levels of jurisdiction, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09

  TSARENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  SILIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 42940/06

  GOVORUSHKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 33123/08

  SIZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 38726/05

  PELEVIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 18123/04

  MATSKUS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 4320/05

  POLOVINKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  ISAYEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 22674/02

  OBLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  KHUDYAKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04

  GALUASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 26864/03

  VASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 41169/02

  KONONOVICH v. RUSSIA