Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FURSENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 6 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 26386/02
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 26386/02

  The Court further recalls that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 26386/02

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 26386/02

  Referring to the case of Smirnova v. Russia (nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 58-61, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)), the applicant argued that the domestic courts" decisions to remand him in custody between 14 April 2001 and 14 February 2003 had not been based on any of the reasons for refusing bail accepted by the Court, e.g. the risk that the applicant, if released, would fail to appear for trial, take action to prejudice the administration of justice or commit further offences.
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 26386/02

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen