Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• HRR Strafrecht

  Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c EMRK; Art. 18 EMRK; Art. 2 Abs. 2 GG; Art. 104 Abs. 2 Satz 1 GG; Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG
  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c EMRK; Rechtmäßigkeit und Gesetzmäßigkeit der Inhaftierung: Inkorporation des nationalen Rechts, qualitative Anforderungen an das Gesetz bei Art. 5 EMRK und Prüfung des nationalen Rechts ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUSINSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 18, Art. 41, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 18+5 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 18+5 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOUSSINSKI c. RUSSIE

  Art. 18, Art. 41, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 18+5 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 5 Violation de l'art. 18+5 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.03.2002 - 70276/01
• EGMR, 22.05.2003 - 70276/01
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

Wird zitiert von ... (31)

• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"

  The Court's case-law states that Article 18 of the Convention can only be applied in conjunction with other Articles of the Convention, and a violation can only arise where the right or freedom concerned is subject to restrictions permitted under the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).

  In Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, § 77, ECHR 2004-IV), for example, the Court held that "the restriction of the applicant's liberty permitted under Article 5 § 1 (c) was applied not only for the purpose of bringing [the applicant] before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, but also for other reasons".

  From the wording of Article 18 it is clear that it applies only to rights and freedoms which are subject to restrictions permitted in the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).

• EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 29580/12

  Alexei Anatoljewitsch Nawalny

  Also, allegations of hidden motives were not by their nature susceptible to proof, except in very rare cases such as Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004-IV); in the present case the arguments advanced by the applicant were no more than speculation or a personal perception, devoid of any tangible evidence.
• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  The Court was satisfied that such standard was met only in few cases, such as Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, § 73-78, ECHR 2004); Cebotari v. Moldova (no. 35615/06, §§ 46 et seq., 13 November 2007); or Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 108, 3 July 2012; see, as an opposite example, Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-I).

 
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 15256/05

  TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA

  It can only be applied in conjunction with other Articles (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 75, ECHR 2004-IV).

  Article 18 can be applied together with another Article even if there has been no violation of the main Article (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).

  Thus, in Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, §§ 73-78, ECHR 2004-... (extracts)), the Court accepted that the applicant's liberty was restricted, inter alia, for a purpose other than those mentioned in Article 5. The Court in that case based its findings on an agreement signed between the detainee and a federal minister of the press.

  [7] Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004-IV.

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  Nothing in that material appears to cast doubt on the reasonableness of the suspicion against the applicant, either on the facts or as a matter of criminal law (compare Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 55, ECHR 2004-IV, and contrast Lukanov v. Bulgaria, 20 March 1997, §§ 42-45, Reports 1997-II; Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, §§ 57-61, 6 November 2008; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, §§ 90-99, 22 May 2014; and Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, §§ 121-32, 17 March 2016).

  Detention cannot be used as a means of exerting moral pressure on an accused (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, §§ 74-77, ECHR 2004-IV, and Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, no. 37048/04, §§ 57-58, 13 January 2009).

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  The Court finds that such evidence at the relevant time was sufficient to satisfy an objective observer that the first applicant might have committed the offence he was accused of (compare with Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 55, ECHR 2004-IV, and contrast with Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 53, 11 October 2016; Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, §§ 121-32, 17 March 2016; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, §§ 90-99, 22 May 2014; and Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, §§ 57-61, 6 November 2008).
• EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  It can only be applied in conjunction with other Articles of the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 75, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 5865/07

  BUTKEVICH v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the interpretation given by the Russian Constitutional Court (see paragraph 35 above), the above considerations were essential elements pertaining to the legality of the deprivation of liberty (see Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 490; compare, albeit in different contexts; Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, §§ 63-65, ECHR 2004-IV; and Volchkova and Mironov v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 54381/08

  TSVETKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the interpretation given by the Russian Constitutional Court (see also paragraph 73 above), the above considerations were essential elements pertaining to the legality of the deprivation of liberty (see also Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 490; compare, albeit in different contexts, Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, §§ 63-65, ECHR 2004-IV, and Volchkova and Mironov v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

  RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  All in all, having regard to the fact that not even an arguable issue under the cited substantive provision of the Convention - Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - can be said to exist in the particular circumstances of the present case, Article 18 of the Convention cannot possibly be relied on alone (see Merabishvili, cited above, § 287; OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos, cited above, §§ 663 and 664; and Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 36376/04

  KONONOV c. LETTONIE
• VG Berlin, 15.01.2014 - 33 K 526.10

  Asyl und Flüchtlingseigenschaft eines Bürgers der Russischen Föderation
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  KASPAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

  DOCHNAL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 1704/06

  RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 35615/06

  CEBOTARI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  MICHALKO v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 27791/09

  DIDOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 50027/08

  PETKOV AND PROFIROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 21851/03

  BEZYMYANNAYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 67542/01

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35919/05

  BIRULEV AND SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 67542/01

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 19536/14

  ZEKONIENE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 20271/06

  STETIAR AND SUTEK v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR - 67894/17 (anhängig)

  NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 48073/13

  KOVESHNIKOV v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 56998/16

  VELECKA AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA