Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-1 No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (33) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99
SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01
The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX). - EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01
It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law are clearly defined and that the law itself is foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95
BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01
It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law are clearly defined and that the law itself is foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
- EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95
REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01
The Court therefore considers that these five periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy"). - EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91
QUINN c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01
However, the national authorities must attempt to keep it to a minimum (see Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 17, § 42; Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1191, § 25 in fine; K.-F. v. Germany, judgment of 27 November 1997, Reports 1997-VII, p. 2675, § 71; and Mancini v. Italy, no. 44955/98, § 24, ECHR 2001-IX). - EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01
The Court therefore considers that these five periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy"). - EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
LETELLIER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01
It must be examined with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding and reoffending or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 19, § 43; and Panchenko, cited above, § 106). - EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97
NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01
The Court reiterates that it must scrutinise complaints of delays in the release of detainees with particular vigilance (see Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 80, 30 January 2003).
- 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, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06
SADRETDINOV 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, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)). - EGMR, 04.06.2015 - 5425/11
RUSLAN YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE
It is for the Contracting States to organise their legal system in such a way that their law-enforcement authorities can meet the obligation to avoid unjustified deprivation of liberty (see, for example, Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, § 93, 28 June 2007; and Mokallal v. Ukraine, no. 19246/10, § 44, 10 November 2011).
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07
KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE
Elle rappelle avoir souvent conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention dans des affaires où les tribunaux internes avaient maintenu le requérant en détention en se fondant essentiellement sur la gravité des charges et sans envisager d'autres mesures préventives (Khoudobine c. Russie, no 59696/00, CEDH 2006-XII, Dolgova c. Russie, no 11886/05, 2 mars 2006, Michketkoul et autres c. Russie, no 36911/02, 24 mai 2007, Choukhardine c. Russie, no 65734/01, 28 juin 2007, Belov c. Russie, no 22053/02, 3 juillet 2008, Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, 30 juillet 2009, Sutyagin c. Russie, no 30024/02, 3 mai 2011, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, 11 octobre 2011, et Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, 27 novembre 2012). - EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 61582/10
SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
It is for the Contracting States to organise their legal system in such a way that their law-enforcement authorities can meet the obligation to avoid unjustified deprivation of liberty (see Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, § 93, 28 June 2007, and Mokallal v. Ukraine, no. 19246/10, § 44, 10 November 2011). - EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04
CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA
The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; and Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008). - EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04
LAMAZHYK v. RUSSIA
The Court has already held in a number of cases that any ex post facto authorisation of detention is incompatible with the "right to security of person" as it is necessarily tainted with arbitrariness (see, for example, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, § 99, 24 May 2007, and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, § 69, 28 June 2007). - EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 42282/06
MARKELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Similarly, the absence of any grounds or the time-limits given by judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 70-71, 2 March 2006; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008; Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, §§ 129-131, 24 April 2012). - EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 61510/09
SERGEY CHEBOTAREV v. RUSSIA
The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Vladimir Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-98, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-68, 28 June 2007). - EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07
SIDORIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
It is for the Contracting States to organise their legal system in such a way that their law-enforcement authorities can meet the obligation to avoid unjustified deprivation of liberty (see Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, § 93, 28 June 2007, and Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, § 73, 9 December 2008). - EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10
DERGALEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 29769/09
YUGAY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10
RODKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10
DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 22727/08
PLOTNIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 5969/09
RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09
MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 57215/09
BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12
MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10
SHEPEL v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 31691/10
ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05
SERGEYEV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 29464/03
AREFYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02
SAVENKOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
AVDEYEV AND VERYAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 54575/12
KARAPAS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08
NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 16120/07
GORBATENKO AND SHEYDYAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 9237/14
MYALICHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34942/05
KOLKUTIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 1618/06
ZABODALOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13
LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 35413/07
KARPOVA v. RUSSIA