Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIKHALCHUK c. RUSSIE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-3 - Durée de la détention provisoire) (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIKHALCHUK v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 33803/04

  In the case of Idalov v. Russia the Court held that non-consecutive periods of detention should be assessed separately and the six-month period should be applied separately to each period of detention (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 127-33, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 33803/04

  Developing that position, the Court later ruled that challenging a prosecutor's decision in civil proceedings (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 46-52, 24 July 2008) or even raising the issue of ill-treatment before a trial court examining charges against an applicant (see.
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 33803/04

  This is particularly true in cases such as the present one, where the characterisation in law of the facts - and thus the sentence faced by the applicant - was determined by the prosecution without judicial review of the issue whether the evidence that had been obtained supported a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the alleged offence (see, among other authorities Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 180, ECHR 2005-X).

• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 33803/04

  The Court has previously found that the possibility of challenging before a court of general jurisdiction a prosecutor's decision not to institute criminal proceedings into a complaint of ill-treatment constitutes an effective remedy available in the Russian legal system in respect of such complaints (see Trubnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 49790/99, 14 October 2003, and Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 54-67, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 33803/04

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001; and Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 33803/04

  It marks out the temporal limits of the supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 5742/02

  AKULININ AND BABICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 33803/04

  Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, §§ 25-34, 2 October 2008) could also, in certain circumstances, be regarded as an appropriate exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided that the courts examined the substance of the relevant allegations.
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 20427/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 33803/04

  The applicant did not provide any explanation for their failure to do so (see, for example, Borgdorf v. Russia (dec.), no. 20427/05, §§ 29-32, 22 October 2013).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  33803/04.
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 59813/09

  LAZAREV AND BEKTASHYANTS v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes at the outset that since its first judgment concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention in Russia (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 104-121 ECHR 2002 VI), it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of an excessively lengthy pre-trial detention without proper justification in more than a hundred cases against Russia (see, for example, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 169 - 189; ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 32 - 50, 2 March 2006; Mikhalchuk v. Russia, no. 33803/04, §§ 40 - 59, 23 April 2015).