Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14, 35252/08, 59549/12, 16870/11, 16874/11, 16879/11, 22008/12, 14000/12, 18116/15, 7077/06, 35973/07, 7814/08, 25724/08, 49087/08, 61400/11, 70401/11, 5375/12, 10447/12, 30658/13, 63531/13, 2838/14, 7442/15, 74087/10, 15410/11, 72789/12, 5359/13, 3 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
S.M. v. CROATIA
Violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4-1 - Trafficking in human beings);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
S.M. v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4 - Positive obligations;Effective investigation;Article 4-1 - Trafficking in human beings);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Besprechungen u.ä.
- HRR Strafrecht (Entscheidungsbesprechung)
Erfasst Art. 4 EMRK auch die Zwangsprostitution?
Sonstiges (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
S.M. v. CROATIA
Art. 3, Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
[ENG] - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Sonstiges)
Décisions du collège de la Grande Chambre - décembre 2018
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Sonstiges)
Grand Chamber Panel's decisions - December 2018
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
S.M. v. Croatia
[15.05.2019]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14, 35252/08, 59549/12, 16870/11, 16874/11, 16879/11, 22008/12, 14000/12, 18116/15, 7077/06, 35973/07, 7814/08, 25724/08, 49087/08, 61400/11, 70401/11, 5375/12, 10447/12, 30658/13, 63531/13, 2838/14, 7442/15, 74087/10, 15410/11, 72789/12, 5359/13, 3
- EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 60561/14
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98
M.C. c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14
In these cases like in cases concerning acts such as rape and sexual abuse fundamental values, human dignity and essential aspects of private life are at stake (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no 91 and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 150, ECHR 2003-XII).It is well established that States have a positive obligation inherent in both Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention to enact criminal-law provisions effectively punishing serious acts prohibited under those provisions, even where they are not committed by State agents but by private individuals, and to apply them in practice through effective investigation and prosecution (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 153, ECHR 2003-XII, and L.E. v. Greece, no. 71545/12, §§ 65 and 68, 21 January 2016).
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14
The promptness of the authorities" reaction to the complaints is an important factor (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 58216/12
Ausreichende Untersuchung von Anschuldigungen von Menschenhandel
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14
The identified elements of trafficking - the treatment of human beings as commodities, close surveillance, the circumscription of movement, the use of violence and threats, poor living and working conditions, and little or no payment - cut across these three categories (see Rantsev, cited above, §§ 279-82; see also J. and Others v. Austria, no. 58216/12, § 104, ECHR 2017 (extracts).
- EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99
OKKALI c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14
The important point for the Court to review is whether and to what extent the prosecuting authorities in taking their actions and the courts in reaching their conclusion may be deemed to have submitted the case to the careful scrutiny required by Article 4 of the Convention, so that the deterrent effect of the criminal-law system in place and the significance of the role it is required to play in preventing violations of the rights protected under Article 4 of the Convention are not undermined (see, mutatis mutandis, Okkali v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 66, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)). - EGMR, 28.05.2015 - 41107/10
Y. v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14
Concerning such serious acts, the State's positive obligation to safeguard the individual's physical integrity may also extend to questions relating to the effectiveness of the criminal investigation (see, for instance, Y. v. Slovenia, no. 41107/10, 28 May 2015 ) and to the possibility of obtaining reparation and redress (see C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, no. 26692/05, 20 March 2012). - EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96
INDELICATO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14
Consideration has been given in the Court's judgments to matters such as the opening of investigations, delays in identifying witnesses or taking statements (see Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, §§ 88 and 93, 2 November 2010), the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 101-03, 26 July 2007). - EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99
COBZARU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14
Moreover, notwithstanding its subsidiary role in assessing evidence, the Court has held that where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny, even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 65, 26 July 2007). - EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 26692/05
C.A.S. AND C.S. v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14
Concerning such serious acts, the State's positive obligation to safeguard the individual's physical integrity may also extend to questions relating to the effectiveness of the criminal investigation (see, for instance, Y. v. Slovenia, no. 41107/10, 28 May 2015 ) and to the possibility of obtaining reparation and redress (see C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, no. 26692/05, 20 March 2012). - EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 38281/08
MATASARU AND SAVITCHI v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 60561/14
Consideration has been given in the Court's judgments to matters such as the opening of investigations, delays in identifying witnesses or taking statements (see Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, §§ 88 and 93, 2 November 2010), the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 101-03, 26 July 2007).
- EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 62819/17
DENIS AND IRVINE v. BELGIUM
L"« affaire'renvoyée devant la Grande Chambre est la requête telle qu'elle a été déclarée recevable, à laquelle s'ajoutent les griefs qui n'ont pas été déclarés irrecevables (Ilias et Ahmed c. Hongrie [GC], no 47287/15, §§ 171-172 et 177, 21 novembre 2019, et S.M. c. Croatie [GC], no 60561/14, § 216, 25 juin 2020).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 59549/12, 16870/11, 16874/11, 16879/11, 22008/12, 14000/12, 18116/15, 7077/06, 35973/07, 7814/08, 25724/08, 49087/08, 61400/11, 70401/11, 5375/12, 10447/12, 30658/13, 63531/13, 2838/14, 7442/15, 74087/10, 15410/11, 72789/12, 5359/13, 37098/13, 39017/13, 5 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
N.K. v. GERMANY
No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses) (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
N.K. v. GERMANY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
N.K. v. GERMANY - [Deutsche Übersetzung]
[DEU] No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)
- juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KONRAD v. GERMANY
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Sonstiges)
Prochain collège de la Grande Chambre - décembre 2018
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 9154/10
Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Al-Khawaja-Test; Recht auf ein …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 59549/12
Es kann nicht zulasten des Beschwerdeführers gehen, dass er auf innerstaatlicher Ebene nicht die Kriterien ins Feld geführt hat, die der Gerichtshof erst später, in den Rechtssachen Al-Khawaja und Tahery ./. das Vereinigte Königreich ((GK), Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 26766/05 und 22228/06, ECHR 2011) und S. ./. Deutschland ((GK), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 9154/10, ECHR 2015) aufgestellt oder konkretisiert hat. - EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 26766/05
Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Zeugen (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren: …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 59549/12
Es kann nicht zulasten des Beschwerdeführers gehen, dass er auf innerstaatlicher Ebene nicht die Kriterien ins Feld geführt hat, die der Gerichtshof erst später, in den Rechtssachen Al-Khawaja und Tahery ./. das Vereinigte Königreich ((GK), Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 26766/05 und 22228/06, ECHR 2011) und S. ./. Deutschland ((GK), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 9154/10, ECHR 2015) aufgestellt oder konkretisiert hat. - EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 54146/09
BÁTEK AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 59549/12
Die maßgeblichen allgemeinen Grundsätze, die insbesondere in den Rechtssachen Al-Khawaja und Tahery (…a.a.O.) und S. (…a.a.O.), dargestellt sind, wurden zuletzt in der Rechtssache Bátek u. a. ./. Tschechische Republik (Individualbeschwerde Nr. 54146/09, Rdnrn. 36 bis 40, 12. Januar 2017) zusammengefasst.
- EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 36705/12
STULÍR v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 59549/12
Gleichzeitig ist er der Ansicht, dass X.s im Vorfeld der Hauptverhandlung gemachte Aussage für die Verurteilung des Beschwerdeführers zumindest wesentlich waren und ihre Verwertung möglicherweise eine Beeinträchtigung der Verteidigung dargestellt hat (siehe auch Stulí?™ ./. die Tschechische Republik, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 36705/12, Rdnrn. 63 bis 67, 12. Januar 2017). - EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 49964/11
BHOJWANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 59549/12
Zweitens merkt der Gerichtshof an, dass der Beschwerdeführer sich (anders als der Beschwerdeführer in Bhojwani ./. das Vereinigte Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 49964/11, Rdnrn. 21 und 51 bis 53, 21. Juni 2016) vor den innerstaatlichen Gerichten auf Artikel 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d der Konvention und die Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs zum Umgang mit den Aussagen abwesender Zeugen berufen und (anders als die Beschwerdeführerin in R.A. ./. das Vereinigte Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 73521/12, 3. Mai 2016) vor dem Landgericht, dem Bundesgerichtshof und dem Bundesverfassungsgericht eindeutig und substantiiert vorgetragen hat. - EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 73521/12
R.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 59549/12
Zweitens merkt der Gerichtshof an, dass der Beschwerdeführer sich (anders als der Beschwerdeführer in Bhojwani ./. das Vereinigte Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 49964/11, Rdnrn. 21 und 51 bis 53, 21. Juni 2016) vor den innerstaatlichen Gerichten auf Artikel 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d der Konvention und die Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs zum Umgang mit den Aussagen abwesender Zeugen berufen und (anders als die Beschwerdeführerin in R.A. ./. das Vereinigte Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 73521/12, 3. Mai 2016) vor dem Landgericht, dem Bundesgerichtshof und dem Bundesverfassungsgericht eindeutig und substantiiert vorgetragen hat.
- BGH, 14.10.2020 - 1 StR 33/19
Beschwerde gegen Kostenentscheidung
Zutreffend hat das Landgericht insoweit zwar zugrunde gelegt, dass eine ohne Konfrontationsmöglichkeit des Angeklagten in die Hauptverhandlung eingeführte belastende Zeugenaussage besonders sorgfältig und kritisch zu würdigen ist und dass regelmäßig weitere Beweismittel hinzutreten müssen, die diese Aussage bestätigen, wenn hierauf die gerichtliche Überzeugung gestützt werden soll (vgl. BGH, Beschlüsse vom 22. Juni 2005 - 2 StR 4/05 mwN …und vom 4. April 2007 - 4 StR 345/06 Rn. 16;… EGMR, Urteile vom 19. Juli 2012 - 26171/07 Rz. 42, 45 mwN und vom 26. Juli 2018 - 59549/12 Rn. 58 ff.).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06, 35973/07, 7814/08, 25724/08, 49087/08, 61400/11, 70401/11, 5375/12, 10447/12, 30658/13, 63531/13, 2838/14, 7442/15 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
FORTALNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
FORTALNOV v. RUSSIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (49) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00
MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06
The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, 4 November 2010, §§ 70-73; Ivan Kuzmin, cited above, §§ 81-84; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 46-48, 19 January 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 75-78, 15 November 2012; Venskute v. Lithuania, no. 10645/08, § 80, 11 December 2012; Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia, no. 47837/06, §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015; and Birulev and Shishkin v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 47837/06
RAKHIMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06
The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, 4 November 2010, §§ 70-73; Ivan Kuzmin, cited above, §§ 81-84; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 46-48, 19 January 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 75-78, 15 November 2012; Venskute v. Lithuania, no. 10645/08, § 80, 11 December 2012; Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia, no. 47837/06, §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015; and Birulev and Shishkin v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 16499/09
NAGIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06
The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, 4 November 2010, §§ 70-73; Ivan Kuzmin, cited above, §§ 81-84; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 46-48, 19 January 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 75-78, 15 November 2012; Venskute v. Lithuania, no. 10645/08, § 80, 11 December 2012; Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia, no. 47837/06, §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015; and Birulev and Shishkin v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35919/05
BIRULEV AND SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06
35919/05 and 3346/06, §§ 56-57, 14 June 2016). - EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 20364/05
ALEKSANDR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06
The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, 4 November 2010, §§ 70-73; Ivan Kuzmin, cited above, §§ 81-84; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 46-48, 19 January 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 75-78, 15 November 2012; Venskute v. Lithuania, no. 10645/08, § 80, 11 December 2012; Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia, no. 47837/06, §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015; and Birulev and Shishkin v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 11778/05
SMOLIK v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06
The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, 4 November 2010, §§ 70-73; Ivan Kuzmin, cited above, §§ 81-84; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 46-48, 19 January 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 75-78, 15 November 2012; Venskute v. Lithuania, no. 10645/08, § 80, 11 December 2012; Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia, no. 47837/06, §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015; and Birulev and Shishkin v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 33627/06
GRINENKO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06
The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, 4 November 2010, §§ 70-73; Ivan Kuzmin, cited above, §§ 81-84; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 46-48, 19 January 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 75-78, 15 November 2012; Venskute v. Lithuania, no. 10645/08, § 80, 11 December 2012; Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia, no. 47837/06, §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015; and Birulev and Shishkin v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 07.12.2023 - 3345/18
OVCHAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018), Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g. to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018),.
Detention without a court order beyond the 48-hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 82, 26 June 2018).
- EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 6768/11
LIFINTSEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
In the leading cases of Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, §§ 70-72 and 74-76, 10 February 2011), Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 5425/11, §§ 68-70, 4 June 2015), Strogan v. Ukraine (no. 30198/11, §§ 88-89, 6 October 2016), Ignatov v. Ukraine (no. 40583/15, §§ 36-37, 15 December 2016), Fortalnov and Others v. Russia (nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018) and Grubnyk v. Ukraine (no. 58444/15, §§ 71-73 and 83-85, 17 September 2020), the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see the appended table).Delay in the drawing up of the arrest report (Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 71-73, 17 September 2020, and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, no. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79,.
7077/06 and 12 others,.
§§ 88-89, 6 October 2016, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 83-85, 17 September 2020), delay in the drawing up of the arrest report (Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 71-73, 17 September 2020, and Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79,.
7077/06 and 12 others,.
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 20948/13
MEZAK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018), Detention without a court order beyond the 48-hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 82, 26 June 2018).
Detention without a court order beyond the 48-hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 82, 26 June 2018).
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018), Detention without a court order beyond the 48-hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 82, 26 June 2018).
- EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 52342/20
LAVROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79,.
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
- EGMR - 26529/18 (anhängig)
BOYAROV v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
The applications concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
- EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 36904/19
BUTYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018, as regards unlawful detention; Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, no. 38004/12, §§ 166-72, 17 July 2018, concerning inability to communicate freely and privately with a lawyer during the trial; Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos.5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - arrested at 12.30 on 19/05/2021, recorded at 9 p.m. on 20/05/2021; raised in detention proceedings, decision of 22/06/2021 (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
- EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 2954/18
MAZANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, 13 February 2018, Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, 8 October 2019, Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
- EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 19134/22
NAUMENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-84, 26 June 2018, regarding unlawful detention; and Tomov and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 58772/18
IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018.7077/06 and others, 26 June 2018,.
5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - Detention without a court order between 01/02/2018 and 05/02/2018, that is beyond the 48-hour time-limit (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 82, 26 June 2018).
- EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 42282/06
MARKELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, § 76, 26 June 2018).Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
Detention (criminal) for more than three hours without any written record (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, §§ 76-79, 26 June 2018).
- EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 83654/17
SAVELYEVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.04.2024 - 33610/18
TRETYAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 75045/11
PUGACHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 18032/19
BARONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 50942/08
IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 41761/20
KUSHNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 84744/17 (anhängig)
AYDAROV v. RUSSIA and 19 other applications
- EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 36533/18
KUVSHINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 3001/18 (anhängig)
KADULIN v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications
- EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 62807/09
MASLOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 4815/18
KARGASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 40311/19
MUZHETSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 34241/16
KHORRSHR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 41071/18
TINGAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 12260/15
SHOLOMYTSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 02.11.2023 - 56247/15
KASHUBA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 29978/14
SPESYVTSEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR - 3551/18 (anhängig)
TITOVA v. RUSSIA and 20 other applications
- EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 47954/16
USHAKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 60851/12
VARZHABETYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 4792/22
ABAKUMETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 75231/17
YURGILEVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 41232/18 (anhängig)
POPOV v. RUSSIAd 29 other applications
- EGMR - 38147/18 (anhängig)
MAKHAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 18 other applications
- EGMR - 48582/18 (anhängig)
RUDAKOVA v. RUSSIA and 23 other applications
- EGMR - 24712/21 (anhängig)
KUZMIN v. RUSSIA and 13 other applications
- EGMR - 16678/17 (anhängig)
CHEMURZIYEVA v. RUSSIA an d4 other applications
- EGMR - 30342/19 (anhängig)
LEVCHENKO v. RUSSIA and 10 other applications
- EGMR - 48841/14 (anhängig)
FAYZULIN v. RUSSIA and 13 other applications
- EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18
GORYUNKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 38503/18
MIRONOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 76201/17
KAVKAZSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 68793/13
MINIBAYEV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR - 10722/21 (anhängig)
KONOVALOVA v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications
- EGMR - 10869/18 (anhängig)
RYABININ v. RUSSIA and 19 other applications
- EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 5859/07
BONDARENKO c. RUSSIE
- EGMR - 4374/18 (anhängig)
GOGOLEV v. RUSSIA and 13 other applications
- EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 54172/20
KOKUNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 10970/12
GRIGORYEV AND IGAMBERDIYEVA v. RUSSIA
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11, 16874/11, 16879/11, 22008/12, 59549/12, 14000/12, 18116/15, 7077/06, 35973/07, 7814/08, 25724/08, 49087/08, 61400/11, 70401/11, 5375/12, 10447/12, 30658/13, 63531/13, 2838/14, 7442/15, 74087/10, 15410/11, 72789/12, 5359/13, 37098/13, 39017/13, 5 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KAHADAWA ARACHCHIGE AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings) (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KAHADAWA ARACHCHIGE v. CYPRUS and 2 other applications
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13 MRK
[ENG] - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Sonstiges)
Forthcoming Grand Chamber Panel - December 2018
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11, 16874/11, 16879/11, 22008/12, 59549/12, 14000/12, 18116/15, 7077/06, 35973/07, 7814/08, 25724/08, 49087/08, 61400/11, 70401/11, 5375/12, 10447/12, 30658/13, 63531/13, 2838/14, 7442/15, 74087/10, 15410/11, 72789/12, 5359/13, 37098/13, 39017/13, 5
- EGMR, 16.10.2019 - 16870/11
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (14)
- EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 13255/07
Georgien ./. Russland
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
The Court notes that the scope of application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 applies only to aliens "lawfully resident" in the territory of the State in question (see, inter alia, Berdzenishvili and Others v. Russia, nos. 14594/07 and 6 others, § 87, 20 December 2016; Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 228, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Nowak v. Ukraine, no. 60846/10, § 79, 31 March 2011). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95
ATHANASSOGLOU ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
The Court will confine itself to noting that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available only in respect of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 91, 23 October 2012; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
The Court will confine itself to noting that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available only in respect of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 91, 23 October 2012; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV).
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09
F.A.K. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
The Court will confine itself to noting that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available only in respect of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 91, 23 October 2012; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 46897/07
EL MORABIT v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
The Court will confine itself to noting that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available only in respect of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 91, 23 October 2012; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10
NOWAK v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
The Court notes that the scope of application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 applies only to aliens "lawfully resident" in the territory of the State in question (see, inter alia, Berdzenishvili and Others v. Russia, nos. 14594/07 and 6 others, § 87, 20 December 2016; Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 228, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Nowak v. Ukraine, no. 60846/10, § 79, 31 March 2011). - EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74
SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
Relying on the Court's judgments in Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, and The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, the first applicant referred to the principles governing these conditions. - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
The Government stressed that on many occasions the Court had held that "respect" did not necessarily entail enabling a family to establish themselves in the country of their choice (relying on Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 68, Series A no. 94). - EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89
CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
In these circumstances, it could not be said that the first applicant's deportation had constituted an interference with his family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 2, as responsibility for the impugned separation could not be imputed to the respondent Government (relying on Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, judgment of 20 March 1991, §§ 88-89, Series A no. 201). - EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11
Relying on the Court's judgments in Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, and The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, the first applicant referred to the principles governing these conditions. - EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83
OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10
M.A. c. CHYPRE
- EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 54131/10
Asyl, Widerruf, Achtung des Familienlebens, Refoulement, subsidiärer Schutz, …
- EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 29031/04
MAWAKA v. THE NETHERLANDS